American Journal of Law & Medicine最新文献

{"title":"Crisis Pregnancy Centers: An Inherently Unjust Limitation to Reproductive Rights.","authors":"Rebecca Feinberg, Danielle Pacia","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.28","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 2-3","pages":"275-285"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10641219","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reforming Medicaid Coverage Toward Reproductive Justice.","authors":"Madeline T Morcelle","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.27","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As the United States' largest public health insurance program, Medicaid has since 1965 played a crucial role in the struggle for equitable health care access. It has the potential to be a powerful instrument of reproductive justice, yet discriminatory policies that deny coverage for vital sexual, reproductive, or other health services, or exclude entire populations of people with low incomes from coverage altogether, constrain peoples' health and reproductive futures. Resulting discrimination in Medicaid law and policy thwart the program's ability to promote intergenerational health equity and reproductive justice for underserved communities.This Article provides an account of why reproductive justice is a necessary framework for examining, reimagining, and reforming Medicaid coverage law and policy. Part I gives a brief history and overview of reproductive justice, which serves as \"an open source code that people have used to pursue fresh critical thinking regarding power and powerlessness.\" Part II argues that we should utilize that open source code in Medicaid coverage reform. Using some of the reproductive justice movement's critiques as a starting point, it explores how reproductive oppression has shaped Medicaid coverage law, policy, and mainstream reproductive and health care reform movements' proposals, and to what effect. It argues that examining Medicaid law, policy, and proposed reforms through this lens and in collaboration with the reproductive justice movement can enable health advocates and policymakers to more fully understand, disrupt, and dismantle reproductive injustices that drive health inequities. Ultimately, it can empower reformers to build a more equitable public health insurance safety net that brings us closer to reproductive justice for all.</p>","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 2-3","pages":"223-243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9137807","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reason-Based Abortion Bans, Disability Rights, and the Future of Prenatal Genetic Testing.","authors":"Nina Roesner,&nbsp;Leila Jamal,&nbsp;David Wasserman,&nbsp;Benjamin E Berkman","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.21","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent advances in prenatal genetic testing have made testing for congenital disorders more accessible, with emerging technologies promising further expansion of available testing options. In particular, non-invasive prenatal testing (\"NIPT\") has allowed women to identify more fetal disorders earlier in pregnancy than was possible only a decade ago. In addition to allowing women to prepare for the birth of a child with a disability, prenatal diagnoses give women the ability to terminate a pregnancy to avoid raising a child with a disability, a choice driven by myriad factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 2-3","pages":"187-199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9137808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Do Pluripotent Stem Cells Offer a New Path to Reproduction?","authors":"Audrey R Chapman","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.23","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ability of pluripotent stem to develop into any of the cell types in the human body has meant that it was only a matter of time before scientists would try to transform them into human gametes. Up to now though it has not been possible to do so. Nevertheless a 2016 book written by Henry Greely speculated that in twenty to forty years most people in developed countries will cease reproduction through sex, using sex exclusively for pleasure, and instead will rely on reproduction through pluripotent stem cell-derived gametes. This paper will offer a different perspective. After describing the process through which human pluripotent stem cells might eventually be coaxed into gametes, it will show why the use of pluripotent stem cell-derived gametes for reproductive purposes would present significant safety, ethical, and regulatory challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 2-3","pages":"256-265"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10641216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Pregnant Women and Opioid Use Disorder: Examining the Legal Landscape for Controlling Women's Reproductive Health.","authors":"Lynn M Madden,&nbsp;Jenn Oliva,&nbsp;Anthony Eller,&nbsp;Elizabeth DiDomizio,&nbsp;Mat Roosa,&nbsp;Lisa Blanchard,&nbsp;Natalie Kil,&nbsp;Frederick L Altice,&nbsp;Kimberly Johnson","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.26","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Women with opioid use disorder (\"OUD\") are more likely than other women to experience sexual assault, unintentional pregnancy, transactional sex and coercion regarding reproductive health care choices than women without OUD. Laws described as family friendly may be punitive rather than helpful to women and rarely apply to men. Laws regarding reproductive health and OUD are unevenly enforced and therefore biased against poor, minority women. As part of a larger study oriented toward strengthening systems of care related to the intersection of HIV and OUD, we conducted an analysis of state laws related to pregnant and postpartum women with OUD. Data on disparities in child removals and pregnant women's use of evidence-based treatment for OUD by income and race were captured for the five states with the most restrictive laws in both categories. Laws that were purportedly designed to improve reproductive health outcomes for women with OUD and/or their children often have the opposite of the expressed intended outcome. There is a relationship between restrictive reproductive choice and coercive OUD treatment policy for women. Restrictive state regulations for pregnant women with OUD persist despite negative outcomes for maternal and child health. Altering coercive and/or criminalizing regulation and redefining 'family friendly' may improve outcomes for individuals and families.</p>","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 2-3","pages":"209-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10641222","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Remote Reproductive Rights.","authors":"Rachel Rebouché","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.29","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In July 2020, a federal district court lifted the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) restriction requiring patients to pick up the first drug of a medication abortion—mifepristone—at a healthcare facility. Soon after, an ongoing experiment with remote care for abortion expanded, as telemedicine did in other areas, and virtual clinics began offering no-touch abortions. Growth of virtual care stalled in January 2021 when the Supreme Court stayed a district court’s order pending the appeals process. But in April 2022, persuaded by the evidence of remote abortion’s safety and efficacy, the FDA suspended enforcement of the in-person rule for the course of the pandemic. On December 16, 2021, the FDA lifted the requirement that patients pick up mifepristone at a healthcare facility, clearing the way for supervised mail delivery and pharmacy dispensation. The expansion of virtual clinics, however, is not without significant limitations. First, questions remain about how to implement the new FDA regulation, specifically regarding certified pharmacies, and several FDA restrictions on mifepristone remain in place. Second, about half the country prohibits telehealth for abortion by either banning all abortion or by requiring the physical presence of a healthcare professional. Third, participation in telemedicine depends on various forms of privilege. Patients must have a stable internet connection or smartphone as well as an uncomplicated pregnancy, which, in part because of U.S. health disparities, is more likely for wealthier and white people. Even with the expansion of remote care, the need for clinical spaces will not disappear; in fact, it will come under increasing pressure. This Article maps the emergence of virtual abortion care and analyzes the potential trajectory of medication abortion access, given that the Supreme Court has overturned constitutional protections for abortion. It considers the limits of telehealth for abortion—who telehealth can reach and who it cannot. Those living in states that permit abortion will have new options for ending early pregnancies. Those residing in states hostile to abortion will have to seek cross-border care, carry pregnancies to term, or find other avenues to end pregnancies. But the portability of abortion pills, when mailed by prescribers or dispensed by certified pharmacies, will test how closely states officials (or anyone else) can police or impede access to medication abortion.","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 2-3","pages":"244-255"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9137806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"AMJ volume 48 issue 2-3 Cover and Back matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.31","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 1","pages":"b1 - b1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46470635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Access to Medication Abortion: Now More Important Than Ever.","authors":"Rebecca Fliegel","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.24","url":null,"abstract":"In 2017, 39% of all abortions in the United States were medication abortions, a safe and effective option for those seeking abortions through up to ten weeks of pregnancy.2 The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved medication abortion, composed of a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, in 2000, making the method available for the first time.3 The FDA’s choice to approve medication abortion gave abortion activists hope that abortion would bemore readily accessible.4 One of the many barriers to abortion is the social outing one must undertake when visiting a doctor’s office to obtain the procedure—visits often accompanied by protestors outside those offices shouting at the patient. Medication abortion allows for patients to essentially perform their abortions privately, in their own homes, without suffering that social condemnation.5 However, starting in 2004, numerous states began restricting access to medication abortion.6 Many states require that medication abortion only be prescribed and administered7 by a physician who is in the same room as the patient, which essentially prevents physician assistants or advanced practice nurses from prescribing the medication, and any clinician from prescribing and administering the medication via telemedicine.8 These restrictions became problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic when doctors’ offices were either closed or dangerous places to visit for people with certain health conditions.9","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 2-3","pages":"286-304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10641221","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"AMJ volume 48 issue 2-3 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.30","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"f1 - f7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48102581","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ignoring the Experts: Implications of the FDA's Aduhelm Approval.","authors":"Alexandra Maulden","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.15","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In early June 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (\"FDA\") granted Accelerated Approval to Aducanumab (\"Aduhelm\") for treating Alzheimer's disease. The decision was immediately engulfed in controversy because the agency ignored the Scientific Drugs Advisory Committee's unanimous recommendation not to approve the drug. The FDA granted the approval based on Aduhelm's ability to lower beta-amyloid levels. However, the agency had not previously indicated this as a surrogate clinical end for the trial, and its own scientific analysis failed to show that amyloid changes correlate with cognitive or functional changes for Alzheimer's patients. This decision sets dangerous precedent and has the potential to transform the approval process for new drugs including, but not limited to, those meant to treat Alzheimer's.</p>","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 1","pages":"108-133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40491558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}