Health Law and Policy Commons^™

Cognitive Content Moderation: Freedom Of Thought And The First Amendment Right To Receive Subconscious Information, Mason Marks

Scholarly Publications

In the television series Severance, employees of Lumon Industries receive brain implants that divide their memories of work and home life. When employees arrive at work, implants block access to memories of the outside world and unlock memories formed on the job. By manipulating the flow of information in employees' brains, Lumon engages in what this Article calls cognitive content moderation. Though Severance is science fiction, emerging technologies, including drugs and electronic devices, promote cognitive content moderation by influencing thought, memory, and perception. Constitutional law is unprepared. To clarify freedom of thought and make it more useful, this Article presents …

On The Constitutional Requirement For Adequate Prenatal Care Post-Dobbs, Ainslee Johnson-Brown

Akron Law Student Publications

This Essay argues that state abortion statutes codifying government interests in the health and welfare of the unborn trigger a constitutional right to prenatal care where adequate medical care is constitutionally required in the penal system. It explores the healthcare mandates required by the U.S. Constitution in the era before the passage of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, specifically looking at abortion access and prenatal provisions in the penological system. It then dissects abortion-related legislation passed by various states in the wake of Dobbs—emphasizing language within the legislative findings that could trigger a constitutional obligation for prenatal health in …

The Mature Minor Doctrine And Covid Vaccination In Connecticut, Brianna Cyr

Connecticut Law Review

The mature minor doctrine is an exception to the common law rule of parental informed consent for a child’s medical decisions. The mature minor doctrine is applicable as either doctrine or statute in some states, but not all. Connecticut currently upholds the common law view for a minor child’s medical decision-making authority. Consequently, one prominent topic of discussion in recent years deals with the Covid-19 pandemic and the public policy discussions over nation-wide vaccination efforts. Many minors, children legally under the age of eighteen, are looking to make their own medical decisions when dealing with vaccination for the Coronavirus. By …

Naloxone And Methadone Access In Tribal Communities, Philomena Kebec

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Identifying Youth Appeals In Alcohol Alternative Social Media Content Through Framing, Melina Oneal

West Chester University Master’s Theses

Proposed regulations for alcohol advertising prevent beverage companies from targeting people under the legal drinking age. However, similar regulations for alcohol alternative beverages are less explored, which could allow alcohol alternative products to create awareness for alcoholic beverages among youth. Alcohol alternatives beverages, including no-alcohol and low-alcohol products, are increasing in popularity and can function as compliments to alcoholic products to decrease the total alcohol volume consumed or as substitutes for alcoholic products. Framing theory can be operationalized through the Content Appealing to Youth Index, an index of content elements found in research literature to be appealing to youth, to …

Table Of Contents

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

Masthead

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

From Deference To Indifference: Judicial Review Of The Scope Of Public Health Authority During The Covid-19 Pandemic, Wendy E. Parmet

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

For most of American history, courts have granted public health officials significant deference in construing the scope of their own authority. This changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in the federal courts, where deference was replaced with skepticism as courts used the major questions doctrine to narrow the scope of public health powers. This Article examines this development and considers its implications for public health. Part II begins by recounting the long history of judicial deference to officials’ determination of the scope of their public health powers. Part III notes some of the problems with such deference and the pre-pandemic …

Authority To Improve Or Harm Health: The Public Health Front In A Decades-Long Battle Over Governmental Powers, Sabrina Adler, Sara Bartel, Heather Wong

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

Backlash to local, state, and federal responses to combat COVID-19 has resulted in a small but vocal cohort of legislatures and courts trying to change long-settled and foundational principles of public health decision-making. They have shifted authority away from experts and local decision-makers, limiting emergency response in ways that also impact day-to-day public health efforts. Considering some examples of other recent preemption efforts, it is clear that COVID-era backlash is part of a longer-term deregulatory agenda, often framed as an effort to keep “big government” out of people’s lives and to preserve individual freedoms. However, the impact of such deregulation …

The Model Public-Health Emergency Authority Act, Robert Gatter

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

The Uniform Law Commission recently approved the Model Public-Health Emergency Authority Act (MPHEAA or the Act or the Model Act). The MPHEAA grants governors specific and plenary powers to issue public health emergency orders while also ensuring executive branch transparency and accountability. The Act improves public health emergency preparedness by resecuring the legal foundation for states to respond effectively to future emergencies. However, more work is needed to enhance data collection and support vulnerable populations in emergencies.

This Article discusses the origins of the MPHEAA, key policy and drafting choices the Drafting Committee made in creating the MPHEAA, and the …

Doing More With Less: State Public Health Emergency Powers Post-Pandemic, Kelly J. Deere

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

Three years after COVID-19 arrived in the United States, many governors and public health officials are equipped with fewer—not more—public health emergency powers than at the start of the pandemic. This may seem counterintuitive, considering that this virus has killed more than 1.1 million Americans and counting. While public health emergency powers were stripped on the federal, state, and local level, this loss is most acutely felt at the state executive level. Some state legislatures passed laws banning state and local governments from implementing a mask or vaccine mandate, while others amended their state emergency disaster statutes to limit the …

What Is A Public Health Lawyer Today? Acting For, Against, And Beyond Public Health, Scott Burris

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

Health in America is not looking good. Unique among countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the basic measure of national health—life expectancy—was declining even before COVID-19. Public health, both as a system of institutions and as a profession working to promote longer and healthier lives, is also struggling. The normal insularity of the field’s professional culture—including a lack of legal competency—helped undermine the response to COVID-19, which was dismal by any measure. At this difficult time, this Article considers three different ways public health lawyers can make a contribution to public health as a goal and as …

The Supreme Court’S 2022-23 Access To Court Decisions, Sarah Somers, Abigail Coursolle, Sarah L. Grusin, Jane Perkins

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

The Supreme Court’s 2022–23 Term yielded significant decisions bringing about goals long-sought by conservatives. This debut Term for the first Black woman Justice also included some results welcomed by progressives, including decisions on voting rights, Native American sovereignty, and individual enforcement of Spending Clause enactments. In this Article, we discuss significant decisions that have implications for access to court for civil litigants, focusing on those affecting access for low-income and marginalized litigants. We also look ahead to what the 2023–24 Term may bring for those seeking access to the courts.

The Future Of Jacobson V. Massachusetts And Modern Substantive Due Process For Public Health Preparedness, Helen S. Webster

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

Both the threat of public exposure to Ebola in the United States in 2014 and the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in 2020 prompted states to impose quarantine and mask mandates, among other responses, to protect the public’s health. When these state actions were eventually challenged on substantive due process grounds in courts across the nation, judges struggled to determine which legal test applied when reviewing the constitutionality of the state actions. On one hand, courts considered the precedent set forth in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 Supreme Court case that upheld a Massachusetts vaccine mandate as a valid exercise of …

“The People” Getting Sick Of Orders: Legislative Vetoes And Checks And Balances, José Manuel Sandoval Jr.

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

During the COVID-19 pandemic, state legislators rushed to amend their public health emergency statutes or state’s constitution to alter the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches during public health emergencies. The power to exercise an unconditional and unilateral legislative veto of a governor’s declaration of public health emergency is among one of the most forceful of these pandemic-era amendments. The Pennsylvania legislature attempted to exercise this kind of power in June 2020 to prematurely terminate the governor’s declaration of public health emergency, which was challenged in Wolf v. Scarnati. While the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that …

Table Of Contents

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

Masthead

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Foundations And Analyzing New Conflicts: Teaching Law After Dobbs, Nicole Huberfeld, Linda C. Mcclain, Aziza Ahmed

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

This Article draws on our diverse and complementary areas of scholarly expertise and teaching experiences across law school and public health curricula to offer a multidisciplinary model for teaching in a variety of courses after Dobbs. Teaching reproductive rights and justice poses extensive challenges in the wake of Dobbs’ overruling Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, upending a half century of precedents protecting a constitutional right to abortion, and returning the issue to “the people”—and the states. This Article offers theoretical and pedagogical perspectives on teaching courses in Reproductive Rights and Justice, as well as relevant …

Teaching Dobbs As A Contemporary Case Study Of Federalism In Action And An Introduction To The Cross-Disciplinary Nature Of The Law, Antonia A.B. Miceli

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

With its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion, overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and returned the issue of legal access to an abortion to the states. Prior to Dobbs, reproductive rights and the right to an abortion were firmly situated within the substantive due process and fundamental rights coverage of law school constitutional law courses. But this coverage often falls late in, or completely outside the scope of, the required constitutional law curriculum at U.S. law schools. This Article offers the …

The Shifting Landscape Of Substantive Due Process: Could Dobbs Pose A Threat To Contraceptive Rights?, Madeline C. Tatro

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

Nearly two years ago, the Supreme Court issued its infamous decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a challenge to one of the then-most restrictive abortion bans in the country. In a stunning—yet not entirely surprising—6-3 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not protect abortion as a fundamental right and returned the power to regulate abortion to the states. Of course, legal questions abound as to the future of reproductive care in the United States following this infamous decision, and Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion raises one of the largest-looming concerns. In that …

Emtala Preemption Of State Laws Restricting Emergency Abortions, Rachel N. Reeder

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was established to restrict hospitals from refusing to treat or transferring patients with an unstable emergency medical condition. While intended to protect vulnerable groups from discrimination, the duty EMTALA imposes on hospitals also applies when a pregnant patient presents to a participating emergency room experiencing an emergency medical condition where the standard of care is pregnancy termination. Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states have enacted laws prohibiting abortions, many with no exception or exceptions too narrow for stabilizing a pregnant patient’s emergency medical condition as required by EMTALA. This …

Divine Law Or Constitutional Flaw: The Clash Of Religious Belief And Legal Neutrality In Missouri’S Abortion Ban, Caela M. Camazine

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

This Note explores the constitutional implications of Missouri’s recent abortion ban enacted in the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This Note examines the clash of religious beliefs and the law by dissecting the legislative history and intent behind Missouri’s abortion ban. The ban, known as House Bill 126 or the “Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act,” took effect immediately upon certification by State Attorney General Eric Schmitt and prohibits nearly all abortions, except in cases of a narrowly defined “medical emergency.” Notably, the law invokes …

Table Of Contents

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

Masthead

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

Regulating The Pains Of Racial Discrimination, Alice Abrokwa

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

This essay examines the relationship between experiences of racial discrimination and pain, assessing how social, legal, and regulatory responses to racial pain in the United States can enable further discrimination and compound the underlying pain. The essay articulates a conceptual framework for understanding this relationship, contending that: racial discrimination can contribute to pain severity and sensitivity; patients of color seeking pain relief are subject to heavy social scrutiny, including from their medical providers; social scrutiny and regulatory restriction together limit patients’ lawful avenues for pain relief, including their access to controlled substances that are used to manage pain; patients who …

Desegregating Behavioral Health Care For Medicaid Youth, Caroline M. Marsh, Valarie K. Blake

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

The Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 581 (1999) that it is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for states to rely on institutionalized care when home and community-based care is more appropriate. Yet, over a quarter of a century later, states persist in institutionalizing youth experiencing behavioral health disabilities. This article explores Olmstead’s impact thus far on deinstitutionalization of youth behavioral health care, and the limits of Olmstead as a vehicle for lasting change. We argue that, although recent enforcement actions reflect critical change, Olmstead enforcements alone cannot succeed …

The Supreme Court’S Access To Court Decisions In 2023-2024, Jane Perkins, Amanda Avery, Arielle Linsey, Sarah Somers

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

The Supreme Court’s 2023–24 Term produced a number of controversial decisions, affecting everything from where unhoused people can sleep to the president’s absolute immunity. In this Article, we discuss significant decisions that have implications for access to court for civil litigants, focusing on a trio of decisions that curtail the power of administrative agencies. Also highlighted are decisions that address jurisdiction, standing and mootness, sovereign immunity, statutory construction, due process, and equal protection. We close with a brief preview of cases before the Court during the 2024–2025 Term.

Health Care Transactions And The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Shift To Substantial Lessening Principle, Nadia C. Hundley

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

In response to growing concerns regarding consolidation in the healthcare industry and the limitations of the consumer welfare standard focus, the Biden Administration’s repeal of healthcare-specific guidance and the introduction of the 2023 Merger Guidelines mark an important shift in antitrust enforcement. Departing from the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, the new framework centers on the “substantial lessening” principle grounded in the text of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The goal––to empower regulators to scrutinize mergers that may harm the competitive process beyond cases that clearly raise prices for consumers. This Note discusses the legal implications of this shift, particularly …

From Crisis To Controversy: Examining The Legality Of Overdose Prevention Centers In New York And Beyond, Hallie R. Schechter

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

The opioid overdose epidemic in the United States has prompted the implementation of Overdose Prevention Centers [OPCs] as a harm reduction strategy, despite uncertain legality under federal law and conflicting statutory interpretations. These OPCs face imminent legal challenges, primarily due to the application of the federal “Crack House Statute,” which criminalizes maintaining a drug-involved premises. If unresolved, these legal uncertainties could lead to the prosecution and closure of OPCs, exacerbating the epidemic. To secure the future of OPCs, independent judicial interpretation of the Crack House Statue by certain circuits or legislative action amending the Crack House Statute to authorize OPCs …

Walking A Tightrope: The Future Of Controlled Substance Prescriptions Via Telehealth, Michaela K. Ellison

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

The COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (COVID-19 PHE) spurred changes in healthcare delivery, greatly increasing telemedicine utilization and resulting in temporary exceptions to the Ryan Haight Act (RHA). These exceptions allowed limited prescriptions of controlled substances through telemedicine without a prior in-person patient evaluation. Research indicates that these relaxed prescribing standards did not lead to an increase in overdose related deaths, specifically with respect to drugs like buprenorphine administered in opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, instead improving access and retention outcomes. However, in anticipation of the COVID-19 PHE’s end, in 2023 the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) released notices of proposed rulemakings …