7300 research outputs found
Sort by
A Pill\u27s Ransom: Healthcare Liability Litigation for Unnecessary Pelvic Examinations for Birth Control Pills
No full textDespite some of the modest advances made in reproductive rights and reproductive justice in the twentieth and early-twenty-first century in the United States, many vestiges of paternalism and overregulation of female bodies remain. This Article tackles the issue of the requirement of pelvic exams and Pap smear tests for the prescription of oral contraceptives, otherwise known as the birth control pill ( the Pill ). Though state legislators are somewhat to blame for this exercise of control over female bodies for women to receive access to contraceptives, it is the medical profession itself that is at the core of this ill. Owing to this barrier imposed by those tasked with caring for others, women in need of contraceptives may not be able to receive them because of fear of pelvic exams, the cost of such exams, or the inability to take the time for lengthy appointments.
It is one thing to require examinations for prescription medications where doing so is necessary to ensure the safe and effective use of the drug. It is quite another to impose an examination on someone despite there existing no evidence that the examination is necessary for the prescription of the sought medication. Notwithstanding this near-axiomatic truth, countless physicians in the United States require or strongly suggest a pelvic examination before prescribing the Pill or writing a refill prescription for it. Because this is tantamount to ordering an oft embarrassing and uncomfortable examination without a purpose, litigants should challenge this practice in the courts as medical malpractice.
The harm described in this Article is not abstract. Unfortunately, for many women face serious repercussions for healthcare workers\u27 decisions. Pelvic examinations and Pap smear tests approximately cost one-hundred and twenty-five dollars and forty dollars respectively. Moreover, any laboratory tests for the presence of sexually transmitted diseases may cost anywhere from fifty to two hundred dollars. However, a visit to a physician without these examinations cost roughly less than one hundred dollars. Consequently, for individuals without insurance, which is around nine percent of the population of the United States, these examinations may be cost-prohibitive.
This Article addresses this issue in two steps. First, in Part II, it outlines the evidence - or rather, the lack thereof - regarding the need for pelvic examinations to prescribe birth control. Second, in Part III, it contemplates the possibility that when caregivers require pelvic examinations for the Pill, they are committing medical malpractice. As part of this analysis, this Article advocates for medical malpractice litigation against physicians who continue this unnecessary and harmful practice. Part IV briefly surveys ways private and non-profit entities are attempting to provide access to the Pill online and without a visit to a doctor\u27s office. Finally, Part V concludes this Article
The Sword and the Shield: The Benefits of Opinion Letters by Employment and Labor Agencies
Get PDFOpinion letters are a highly beneficial vehicle for federal and state agencies to provide meaningful guidance for courts, businesses, workers, unions, trade groups, practitioners, advocacy groups, and the public at large. This Article examines the benefits and criticisms of opinion letters issued by employment and labor agencies. For more than seventy years the Department of Labor (“DOL”) provided employers, workers, and others with guidance regarding the interpretation and application of the Fair Labor Standards Act and related regulations through opinion letters. Indeed, opinion letters have been issued during both Democratic and Republican administrations. Unfortunately, in more recent years, opinion letters have become increasingly – and unnecessarily – politicized. Significantly, DOL under the Obama Administration stopped the practice of issuing opinion letters and thereby denied the public the opportunity for significant and timely guidance. Fortunately, in 2017, DOL announced that it would resume its practice of issuing opinion letters. At the time of this publication, it is unclear what the current administration will do
Abuse Just Out of Frame: The Impact of Online Dispute Resolution on Domestic Violence
Get PDF“This is a[n] issue we didn’t have when we had live court.” It was a chilling day for prosecutor Deborah Davis when she discovered a victim of domestic violence was in the same apartment as her abuser during a session of Zoom court. In this case, the survivor had done the hardest part; she had made the decision to prosecute her abuser. As court began, Davis saw that her client had a similar virtual background to the alleged abuser and noticed that her client was looking away from the camera while answering questions. This prompted Davis to request that police be sent to her client’s location, where officers discovered that the abuser was indeed sitting in the same room as the victim during court. The judge in this case applauded the police for following up so quickly with the victim and taking the defendant into custody and marveled at the fact that something like this could never have happened during live court. The story involving prosecutor Deborah Davis is one of many harrowing tales that exemplify the faults with using online forums for survivors of domestic violence. This story also represents one of many in which abusers can and do attempt to control the actions of a survivor
Phased Mark-to-Market for Billionaire Income Tax Reforms
No full textIn this installment of Academic Perspectives on SALT, Gamage and Shanske advocate for phased mark-to-market as a mechanism for reforming the taxation of investment gains of billionaires and megamillionaires
Protective Orders and Limited Guardianships: Legal Tools for Sidelining Plenary Guardianship
Get PDFBy encouraging use of limited guardianships and protective orders instead of full guardianships, states can reduce the likelihood of unnecessarily stripping adults of their civil rights. Yet, although such less restrictive alternatives have long been available to most courts, in practice, their use remains limited and sporadic. This article argues that this lack of use suggests that it is not sufficient for the law to state a preference for these less restrictive alternatives, it must actually create systems that incentivize their use and actively discourage the use of full guardianships. This article then shows, using the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act as a guide, how states can adopt statutes that create such incentivized systems
Artificial Bias: The Ethical Concerns of AI-Driven Dispute Resolution in Family Matters
Get PDFFrom the global positioning systems (GPS) that guide our morning commute to the more complex machine learning systems used to build Spotify’s curation algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) has become a central part of the way that society functions efficiently. AI has become increasingly integrated into our daily lives, permeating consumer and corporate worlds alike. Despite a reputation for being slow to adopt new technology, the legal field has been particularly forward in embracing the use of AI to increase docket speeds, optimize case management, and fill gaps in access to justice. An impressive array of programs now exists, creating a virtual legal system that allows individuals to draft a will, revise a contract, or attend a deposition—all from home. From self-represented clients using a digital divorce template to law firms using advanced AI programs to determine the statistical and precedential likelihood of their client securing custody of their children during a contentious divorce, these programs run the gamut in capability and ease of access. AI programs can be used to create parenting plans and separation agreements, divide assets among parties, and draft terms of divorce based on various forms of historical and legal data. These programs represent an important advancement in the legal field’s ability to remain relevant in an increasingly automated world and can be helpful in expediting what is normally an arduous and lengthy process
The Havoc Death Wreaks: Civil Rights Challenges to Capital Punishment
No full textFollowing a per curium opinion that banned the imposition of capital punishment because it violated the Eighth Amendment, as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall offered a unique criticism of capital punishment. Justice Marshall, an iconic civil rights litigator prior to his confirmation to the Court, stated, [T]he death penalty wreaks havoc with our entire criminal justice system. Similarly, sometime in the late 1950s, Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson reportedly said that capital punishment completely bitches up the criminal law. In essence, both Justices were asserting that the death penalty affects more than just the families of victims and the accused; rather, capital punishment infects the entire criminal justice system. As this Article demonstrates, Justices Marshall and Jackson were right then and they are still right now.
The death penalty touches many more lives than just the individuals condemned to death row. Throughout the process, numerous other people are involved, and some suffer injury as a result of their compulsory association with the machinery of death. Due to the justiciability doctrine of standing, however, these individuals have not received redress for the damage they suffer because of capital punishment. This Article argues, to the contrary, that the individuals who are affected negatively by the death penalty, beyond simply the convicted defendant themself, can satisfy the necessary elements of Article III standing, as well as other justiciability obstacles, and have legitimate claims that the death penalty is cruel and unusual as applied to them. This Article further maintains, specifically, that the families of capital defendants have claims based on the Thirteenth Amendment\u27s prohibition on slavery in addition to Eighth Amendment grievances. If the people considered in this Article can surmount the justiciability hurdle, they present a unique challenge to the constitutionality of capital punishment and offer another vehicle through which death penalty opponents may challenge this age-old punitive practice