This article discusses how in March of 2023 a District Court in Texas enjoined the U.S. government from enforcing certain preventive care requirements under the ACA for private health insurers. The current order by the Court enjoined enforcement of the ACA preventive care requirements based on those recommendations made on or after the date of March 23, 2010, by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. This article discusses the Court’s analysis and the remedy the Court decided on after finding violations under the RFRA and Appointments Clause. The article also discusses the implications and effects of this decision on whether previously covered services that the ACA didn’t allow cost sharing for will now have cost sharing by private health insurers and how that will affect consumers. The article concludes that despite lack of enforcement, private health insurers should not require cost sharing for previously covered services that the ACA didn’t allow cost sharing for before this most recent decision. Cost sharing for previously covered services would increase costs for those enrolled in private health insurance plans and could lead to a reduction in access to preventive services and healthcare.

During the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials exercised their police powers to combat the spread of the virus. The pandemic-related legal interventions adopted throughout the United States included lockdown orders and mask mandates. However, these policies and interventions meant to promote the general welfare of the public, in defense of common good, were met with legal challenges, especially in opposition to interventions’ impact on the exercise of religion. This article provides a legal analysis of the policies meant to curb the COVID-19 pandemic with a focus on legislative and judiciary actions and their implications for religious freedom. Ultimately, we hope this article will help inform future legal analyses on conflicts between public health and religious freedom in the context of pandemic legal preparedness efforts.

This Note examines the effects of Title IX’s equal treatment framework on female collegiate athletes in the context of the female athlete triad. It describes the shortcomings of Title IX’s equal treatment approach and its deleterious effects on the health of female student athletes. It argues for the adoption of the special treatment approach as a remedy.

The power afforded to the administrative state is heavily reliant on public trust and the perception of evidence-based agency decision-making. Organizational reputation is key to preserving regulatory power. However, recent investigations reveal that existing scientific integrity policies may not be sufficient to preserve the credibility of many federal agencies. In fact, a significant number of career scientists across various entities – including the FDA – have observed unreported incidents of political interference. While political influence exerted by the executive branch to set policy goals and determine agency priorities can be beneficial, political pressures must not undermine public trust in scientific agencies. Recently, public perception regarding the FDA’s COVID-19 response threatened to weaken the agency’s longstanding reputation as the gold standard of review. The COVID-19 pandemic publicized vulnerabilities that exist across agencies, as well as those that are unique to the FDA. The FDA’s evolution as an increasingly public health-focused agency that must function in the landscape of politicized science exposes the agency to a greater risk of political interference. After all, the FDA’s involvement in public health requires increased participation in non-ideal, value-based decision-making. Throughout its history, the FDA has managed to maintain its reputation through its firm responses to scandal. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a platform for the FDA to – once again – look introspectively and institute safeguards addressing vulnerabilities that plagued the agency’s pandemic response. This Article examines the FDA’s early COVID-19 response to propose reforms that promote meaningful transparency, public accountability, and scientific integrity.

Synthetic biology is an emerging, interdisciplinary research field with much promise for biomedicine. Broadly defined as “the design and construction of new biological systems to perform specific tasks,” researchers and clinicians are using synthetic biology to develop targeted treatments for cancer, coronaviruses, and so forth. Because of the experimental nature of synthetic biology, regulation is necessary. Current federal frameworks, such as the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, The Toxic Substances Act of 1976, Institutional Review Boards, and self-regulation are not enough. As a result, states have a unique opportunity to develop statutory and regulatory frameworks to develop a pathway for regulating synthetic biology. In developing legislation, state lawmakers should look to build a comprehensive framework that addresses businesses selling technology for synthesizing DNA codes, monitors orders for synthetic DNA, and develops statewide documentation systems. Additionally, public health information on treatments using synthetic biology can help to educate the public and reduce the prevalence of misconceptions about the technology. In the absence of federal regulation, states should step into the synthetic biology regulatory space to ensure that their citizens are not harmed by therapies developed using synthetic biology.

This RCD discusses a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that struck down Puerto Rico’s Act 90-2019, which aimed to regulate pay structures for Medicare Advantage insurers in Puerto Rico. The court found that the provision in Act 90, known as the “Mandated Price Provision,” is preempted by federal law. However, the author argues that the court’s decision did not adequately consider the congressional intent of the Medicare Advantage Act in weighing the public health crisis in Puerto Rico. The RCD provides background on the Medicare Advantage program and Act 90 and explains how Act 90 aimed to eliminate insurers’ practice of paying providers at rates below the CMS’s minimum reimbursement rates under the traditional Medicare program. The article concludes that the court’s decision inadequately considered the larger purpose of the Medicare Advantage Act and the relevant public health crisis in Puerto Rico.

Laws regulating patient care are an essential component of protecting patients and doctors alike. No studies have previously examined what laws exist regarding pelvic examinations in the United States (US). This study systematically reviews and compares regulation and legislation of pelvic examinations in the U.S. and provides a comprehensive resource to educate clinicians, patients, and lawmakers. Each of the fifty States in the U.S. was included. The primary outcome was existence of any pelvic or rectal exam laws. Data was obtained for the type of examination defined within the law, exceptions to the law, to whom the law applied to, the type of consent required, and to whom the consent applied to. Laws were identified from each of the individual state legislative websites. All sections of each law pertaining to pelvic examination were reviewed and organized by state. Descriptive statistics were performed for each of the variables, including frequencies of each amongst the fifty states. State regulation for pelvic examinations varied from no law or regulation to laws pertaining to pelvic, rectal, prostate, and breast examination performed in any context. As of November 22, 2022, there are twenty states (40%) with pelvic examination laws applying to anesthetized or unconscious patients. Thirteen additional states (26%) have proposed pelvic exam laws. Seventeen states (34%) do not have any laws regarding pelvic examinations. Regulation of pelvic examinations has become an increasingly important issue over the past few years in response to growing concerns of patient autonomy and the ethical issues raised by such sensitive examinations. While pelvic examination laws that balance protection for patient autonomy and the needs of caregivers and educators exist in much of the U.S., more work needs to continue in consultation with physicians and health care providers to ensure that all states have reasonable laws protecting the autonomy of patients while also maintaining quality of care.

Traditional methods to prevent and respond to domestic violence include criminal laws, national hotlines, and community programming to promote healthy relationships. Despite these methods, domestic violence continues to be a prevalent public health issue. In recent years, some states began to focus prevention and intervention efforts on the beauty industry. States including Arkansas, Illinois, Tennessee and Washington enacted laws that mandate domestic violence training for salon workers and other beauty professionals. The laws largely require salon workers to attend an informational training on domestic violence before obtaining or renewing their license. However, they do not require any affirmative action on the part of the salon worker if the client discloses that he or she is experiencing domestic violence. This paper investigates how the legislation uses the historically close relationship between hairdressers and their clients in order to achieve a unique way of reaching domestic violence victims, as well as the drawbacks to the legislative structure and atypical public health approach.

In this Article, I explore how nearly continuous public rhetorical challenges to abortion in the political realm first led the public and the courts to turn away from a particular abortion procedure (intact dilation and extraction, also known as partial-birth abortion) which political agitators labeled as “barbaric” and then to view physicians who performed abortions not as legitimate professionals, but simply as “abortionists,” and sometimes as evil “Frankensteins.” “Abortionists” use no “medical judgment” and are unworthy of deference by state legislatures, Congress, or the courts when deciding how or when to perform an abortion. The concentration on the welfare of fetuses and the actions of physicians permitted the abortion debate to bypass discussion of both the rights and welfare of pregnant patients, including their right to health, and to virtually never mention that abortion restrictions primarily affect people in poverty who cannot afford to seek reproductive health care, including an abortion, by traveling to a nonrestrictive state. Understanding the power of extreme rhetoric, including the use of social media in political campaigns and the use and misuse of concrete terms such as murder, infanticide, brutality, and dismemberment, and abstract concepts such as “human dignity,” can help us plot a post-Dobbs way forward. Perhaps the demise of Roe can lead to a birth of a new rhetoric on abortion, one that concentrates on the right to health of everyone, including the right to make reproductive decisions, and requires moving abortion back into the realm of contemporary medicine, complete with a meaningful doctor-patient relationship protected by privacy and financed in a way that is accessible to all pregnant patients.

The state is increasingly criminalizing reproduction. While prosecutions of pregnant people for prenatal drug use began occurring several decades ago,1 this type of prosecution remained relatively rare for many years.2 But such prosecutions have increased dramatically—thousands have now occurred across the United States.3 In addition, the criminalization of reproduction is not limited to instances of prenatal drug use,4 but extends to a wide array of prosecutions in the reproductive space—including the criminalization of stillbirth,5 miscarriage,6 breastfeeding,7 home births,8 and c-section refusals.9 And, of course, recent changes in the Supreme Court have resulted in an almost certain change in the criminal regulation of abortion, as well.10 The criminalization of reproduction often occurs at an initial point of access to the health care system – at the hospital, the doctor’s office, the lactation consultant appointment, or the addiction treatment clinic. In this way, health care settings become gateways into the criminal justice system, and it is the attempt to access reproductive health care that results in criminal prosecution.11

Dennis Lindberg came into his aunt’s care when he was in the 4th grade because his parents struggled with drug addiction and could not provide for him. At thirteen, he was baptized in his aunt’s faith as a Jehovah’s Witness. Just days after he turned fourteen, on November 6, he was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

The prognosis was that Dennis had a 75% chance of cure with standard oncology treatment. Consistent with the requirements of his new faith, however, Dennis told his doctors, “I do not want to be treated if the requirement is that I would have to take a blood transfusion.” His aunt, whose custodial rights seem not to have included medical decisionmaking, was adamant that “[t]his is Dennis’s decision.”

The hospital social worker assigned to Dennis’s case assured his aunt that “having just turned 14, [he] could be considered mature enough to make his own decisions.” But hospital psychologists declined to evaluate Dennis’s maturity because they did “not have the tools for such an assessment.” Established hospital policy described the failure to provide a minor with necessary, life-saving care as medical neglect. Hospital ethicists advised that Dennis’s autonomy interests were outweighed by the benefits associated with treatment. And, standard oncology practice norms are that doctors should push back against minors’ lifesaving treatment refusals. Still, Dennis’s doctor agreed with his social worker and aunt, saying, “We owe respect to a 14-year-old[.]” In this view, he was supported by colleagues on staff and by hospital counsel.

A county judge got the case only at the eleventh hour, on an emergency motion filed by Dennis’s parents and Child Protective Services for a declaration of dependency and to compel the necessary transfusion. Although Dennis was degrading rapidly, his doctor testified that if a transfusion were ordered that day, Dennis still had a 70% chance of survival. The judge had no background in the applicable law and no time to research the issues; nevertheless, he denied the motion concluding, “It is time to do what Dennis has decided.” “Seven hours later, at 6 p.m., on Nov. 28, Dennis died.”1

As the coronavirus pandemic intensified, many communities in the United States experienced shortages of ventilators, intensive care beds, and other medical supplies and treatments. Currently, there is no single national response to provide guidance on allocation of scarce health care resources. Accordingly, states have formulated various “triage protocols” to prioritize those who will receive care and those who may not have the same access to health care services when the population demand exceeds the supply. Triage protocols address general concepts of “fairness” under accepted medical ethics rules and the consensus is that limited medical resources “should be allocated to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”1 The actual utility of this utilitarian ethics approach is questionable, however, leaving many questions about what is “fair” unanswered. Saving as many people as possible during a health care crisis is a laudable goal but not at the expense of ignoring patients’s legal rights, which are not suspended during the crisis. This Article examines the triage protocols from six states to determine whose rights are being recognized and whose rights are being denied, answering the pivotal question: If there is potential for disparate impact of facially neutral state triage protocols against Black Americans and other ethnic groups, is this legally actionable discrimination? This may be a case of first impression for the courts to resolve.

“[B]lack Americans are 3.5 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than [W]hite Americans … . Latinx people are almost twice as likely to die of the disease, compared with [W]hite people.” 2

“Our civil rights laws protect the equal dignity of every human life from ruthless utilitarianism … . HHS is committed to leaving no one behind during an emergency, and this guidance is designed to help health care providers meet that goal.” — Roger Severino, Office of Civil Rights Director, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 3

In an effort to contain the spread of COVID-19, many states and countries have adopted public health restrictions on activities previously considered commonplace: crossing state borders, eating indoors, gathering together, and even leaving one’s home. These policies often focus on specific activities or groups, rather than imposing the same limits across the board. In this Article, I consider the law and ethics of these policies, which I call tailored policies.

In Part II, I identify two types of tailored policies: activity-based and group-based. Activity-based restrictions respond to differences in the risks and benefits of specific activities, such as walking outdoors and dining indoors. Group-based restrictions consider differences between groups with respect to risk and benefit. Examples are policies that treat children or senior citizens differently, policies that require travelers to quarantine when traveling to a new destination, and policies that treat individuals differently based on whether they have COVID-19 symptoms, have tested positive for COVID-19, have previous COVID-19 infection, or have been vaccinated against COVID-19.

In Part III, I consider the public health law grounding of tailored policies in the principles of “least restrictive means” and “well-targeting.” I also examine how courts have analyzed tailored policies that have been challenged on fundamental rights or equal protection grounds. I argue that fundamental rights analyses typically favor tailored policies and that equal protection does not preclude the use of tailored policies even when imperfectly crafted.

In Part IV, I consider three critiques of tailored policies, centering on the claims that they produce inequity, cause harm, or unacceptably limit liberty. I argue that we must evaluate restrictions comparatively: the question is not whether tailored policies are perfectly equitable, wholly prevent harm, or completely protect liberty, but whether they are better than untailored ones at realizing these goals in a pandemic. I also argue that evaluation must consider indirect harms and benefits as well as direct and apparent ones.