The United States has a long and controversial history with abortion that did not end with Roe v. Wade. Almost immediately thereafter, anti-choice politicians commenced a decades-long effort to restrict access to abortion, recently culminating in the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe. One successful attempt to restrict access immediately following Roe was the Hyde Amendment. With more Americans covered by federally funded health insurance than ever, the Hyde Amendment creates an insurmountable barrier to abortion care for those who lack other sources of financing.

Despite the impacts of the Hyde Amendment, support for discontinuing the amendment has been weak. For the first time in over forty years, the United States is in a position to change its abortion funding policy. Beyond ending Hyde, the EACH Act has been introduced in Congress to ensure permanent funding for abortion through all federally funded insurance programs. To secure funding for abortion and reduce barriers to access, advocates must press the federal government to pass legislation such as the EACH Act.

Infantile food products have been at the forefront of litigation in the recent year for unsafe standards set forth by their developing companies. This recent case development explores how the Court decided on a suit brought forth against Gerber for toxic levels of heavy metals in their food. Their opinion shines a light on how upcoming larger cases against Abbott Industries for unsafe milk products might be handled. The author urges the Courts and the FDA to work together to resolve these cases in the interest of pediatric public health.

Abortion, though afforded certain legal protections, can be challenging to access in many areas of the United States, a problem exacerbated by the presence of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). CPCs present themselves as clinics that provide a full spectrum of free pregnancy consultation services, but in fact are pro-life, anti-abortion organizations.1 From the outside, CPCs appear to be neutral health and welfare establishments, leading women *to believe they will receive unbiased guidance based on their best interests. In reality, CPCs recruit unsuspecting women into their facilities to deter them from accessing abortions, promoting only two options: parenthood or adoption.2 Women are lured into CPCs with the promise of free services which range from medical care to clothing and other items. At its most basic level, these deceptive practices violate the autonomy of women seeking reproductive care, perpetuating unjust limitation of access to quality medical care.

As the opioid epidemic continues in the United States and ongoing litigation seeks to hold contributors responsible, state governments have initiated lawsuits against retail pharmacies for their role in contributing to the crisis. This article summarizes an action the State of West Virginia brought against CVS, which the parties recently settled in the fall of 2022. This article examines the unique position of retail pharmacies like CVS, which often serve as both distributors and dispensers, in contributing to the oversaturation and illicit diversion of opioid prescriptions. The article concludes by assessing the viability of potential causes of action against retail pharmacies in opioid litigation.

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.