Supreme Court ruling threatens role of science in regulation.

End of Chevron doctrine has far-reaching implications.

Post-Dobbs Psychiatric Exceptions in Abortion-Restricting States.

Mental disorders and suicide are important causes of increased morbidity and mortality rates during pregnancy. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision, many state legislatures have passed stringent abortion bans and restrictions. These laws define exceptions under which abortion may be legally obtained. Suicidality and other psychiatric symptoms have been excluded from such definitions. In this column, the authors examine how legislatures, courts, and professional regulatory bodies in several abortion-restricting states have defined their medical emergency exceptions. The authors argue that psychiatrists should be concerned about the management of psychiatric emergencies during pregnancy as well as emerging legal intrusions into physician-patient decision making.

An examination of erroneous medical practices in circumcision surgery in light of supreme court decisions.

PURPOSE: Global interest in circumcision, one of the oldest and most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide, continues. There is a significant increase in cases regarding medical malpractice claims in the world and in our country. It is aimed to identify situations that lead to malpractice claims in circumcision surgery, which has question marks regarding its psychological and ethical aspects, to identify situations that are considered errors and professionally risky, and to contribute to eliminating these deficiencies. METHODS: We examined the Supreme Court appeal decisions related to circumcision malpractice cases resolved between 2012 and 2022, using the keyword "circumcision" on the official website of the Republic of Turkiye Supreme Court. RESULTS: We examined 30 Supreme Court decisions that met our criteria. It was determined that the most common lawsuit was filed due to negligence (43.3%), followed by carelessness (20%) and faulty action (20%). CONCLUSION: Physical conditions must be appropriate and healthcare personnel must be adequately trained for circumcision, which is frequently performed especially in pediatric patients and is more frequently subject to malpractice lawsuits than other pediatric operations.

Beneath the Sword of Damocles: Moral Obligations of Physicians in a Post-Dobbs Landscape.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a growing web of state laws restricts access to abortion. Here we consider how, ethically, doctors should respond when terminating a pregnancy is clinically indicated but state law imposes restrictions on doing so. We offer a typology of cases in which the dilemma emerges and a brief sketch of the current state of legal prohibitions against providing such care. We examine the issue from the standpoints of conscience, professional ethics, and civil disobedience and conclude that it is almost always morally permissible and praiseworthy to break the law and that, in a subset of cases, it is morally obligatory to do so. We further argue that health care institutions that employ or credential physicians to provide reproductive health care have an ethical duty to provide a basic suite of practical supports for them as they work to ethically resolve the dilemmas before them.

Use of Oral and Emergency Contraceptives After the US Supreme Court's Dobbs Decision.

Importance: The US Supreme Court Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision allowed states to strengthen restrictions on abortion access, triggering the closure of family planning clinics and leading to confusion about the legality of emergency contraceptives (ECs). Objectives: To evaluate the association between the Dobbs decision and fills for oral and emergency contraceptives in states that enacted the most restrictive abortion policies after Dobbs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data on contraceptive fills for women of reproductive age (15-49 years) in the US from IQVIA's National Prescription Audit PayerTrak and data from the Guttmacher Institute were used to categorize changes in abortion restrictions in each state. A difference-in-differences analysis compared changes in monthly fill rates for daily oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and ECs in states that became most restrictive (implemented a full abortion ban after Dobbs) and comparison states (kept a medium level of abortion restrictions after Dobbs) before (March 2021 to November 2021) and after (July 2022 to October 2023) the Dobbs decision. Exposure: State-level abortion restrictions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly fills of OCPs and ECs per 100 000 women of reproductive age. Results: Between March 2021 and October 2023, 142.8 million prescriptions for OCPs and 904 269 prescriptions for ECs were dispensed at US retail pharmacies. Before Dobbs, trends in monthly fill rates were similar for OCPs and ECs between the most restrictive and comparison states. After the Dobbs decision, states that became the most restrictive experienced an additional 4.1% decline in OCP fills with 285.9 fewer fills per 100 000 (95% CI, -495.8 to -6.8; P = .04). In contrast to OCPs, fills for ECs increased during the first year after Dobbs (July 2022 to June 2023) in both groups of states. However, 1 year after Dobbs (July 2023 to October 2023), the most restrictive states experienced an additional 65% decrease in emergency contraceptive fills with 13.2 fewer fills per 100 000 (95% CI, -27.2 to -4.1; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of prescriptions filled at US pharmacies, the Dobbs decision was associated with declines in oral contraceptives, particularly ECs, in states enacting the most restrictive abortion policies. Given the important role of OCPs and ECs in preventing pregnancy and the need for abortion, efforts to improve access may be needed, especially in states where legal abortion is no longer an option.

The Ninth Amendment: An Underutilized Protection for Reproductive Choice.

Concern about individual rights and the desire to protect them has been part of our nation since its founding, and continues to be so today. The Ninth Amendment was created to assuage the Framers' concerns that enumerating some rights in the Bill of Rights would leave unenumerated rights unrecognized and unprotected, affirming that those rights are not disparaged or denied by their lack of textual support. The Ninth Amendment has appeared infrequently in our jurisprudence, and Courts initially construed it rather narrowly. But starting in the 1960s, the Ninth Amendment emerged as a powerful tool not just for recognizing unanticipated rights, but for protecting or expanding even enumerated rights. The right to privacy--encompassing the right to contraception and abortion--the right to preserve the integrity of your family, the right to vote, the right to own a firearm as an individual--all these rights have been asserted under and found to be supported by the Ninth Amendment. In its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision overturning Roe, the Supreme Court found that there is no right to abortion because it is not in the Constitution. But the potential of the Ninth Amendment is such that reproductive choice need not be mentioned in the Constitution to be protected. Reproductive choice may rightfully be considered as part of a right to privacy, an unenumerated right that nevertheless has abundant precedent behind it. The Ninth Amendment, and its counterparts found in many state constitutions, has the power to protect not just reproductive choice, but all of our fundamental rights.

Distorted Burden Shifting and Barred Mitigation: Being a Stubborn 234 Years Old Ironically Hasn't Helped the Supreme Court Mature.

This Note explores the intricate relationship between emerging adulthood, defined as the transitional phase between youth and adulthood (ages 18-25), and the legal implications of capital punishment. Contrary to a fixed age determining adulthood, research highlights the prolonged nature of the maturation process, especially for individuals impacted by Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). The Note challenges the current legal framework that deems individuals aged 18 to 25 who experienced ACEs as eligible for capital punishment, highlighting the cognitive impact of ACEs on developmental trajectories. Examining cases like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Billy Joe Wardlow, this Note argues that courts often bypass mitigating evidence related to ACEs, thereby perpetuating judicial errors. The mismatched burdens of proof for aggravating and mitigating factors further compound the problem, contributing to a flawed system that disproportionately affects emerging adults. In response to these issues, some states are reevaluating their approach to emerging adult justice, considering initiatives such as "raise the age" campaigns and specialized courts. The Note promotes an approach that aligns with cognitive age appropriateness, tailoring interventions to encompass restorative justice, rehabilitative measures, and a comprehensive legal framework to address the distinct needs of the emerging adult population. Recognizing the potential for cognitive development and rehabilitation during this transitional phase, this Note contends that alternative methods can provide opportunities for ACE-impacted individuals to age out of criminal behaviors, potentially altering life trajectories and mitigating the imposition of capital punishment.

Privileges, Immunities, and Affirmative Action in Medical Education.

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action in university admissions, in which an applicant of a particular race or ethnicity receives a plus factor, is unconstitutional. This ruling was based on both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This article argues that a more natural fit as the basis for constitutional analysis would be a different clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In the article, a legal analysis based on the clause is applied to medical school admissions. Depending on whether a fundamental rights reading or an antidiscrimination (equality) reading of the clause is applied, opposite conclusions are reached on the constitutionality of affirmative action in medical school admissions. This analysis demonstrates why affirmative action in admissions--in this case medical school admissions, which directly affect the composition of the Nation's physician workforce--is a complex and difficult constitutional question.

A Trigger Warning: Red Flag Laws are Still Constitutionally Permissible and Could Reduce the Suicide Rates in the Country's Most Vulnerable States.

Montana, Alaska, and Wyoming lead the United States in a category coveted by no one: the suicide rate. Firearm ownership drives the rate to the disproportionate level it reaches year after year and the states are left with little recourse. This article argues the usefulness and constitutionality of narrowly tailored red-flag laws aimed exclusively at reducing the rate of suicide in these mountain states. The article follows Supreme Court jurisprudence leading up to New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen and offers an analysis that complies with the hyper textualist history and tradition test laid out by Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The analysis demonstrates that narrowly tailored red flag laws are a constitutional means of reducing the suicide rate in these at-risk states and references statutory and cultural avenues for the implementation of the legislation.

California v. Texas: Avoiding an Antidemocratic Outcome.

The Affordable Care Act ("ACA") contains a section titled "Requirement to Maintain Essential Minimum Coverage." Colloquially known as the Individual Mandate, this section of the Act initially established a monetary penalty for anyone who did not maintain health insurance in a given tax year. But with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the monetary penalty was reset to zero, inducing opponents of the ACA to mount a legal challenge over the Individual Mandate's constitutionality. As the third major legal challenge to the ACA, California v. Texas saw the Supreme Court punt on the merits and instead decide the case on grounds of Article III standing. But how would the ACA have fared if the Court had in fact reached the merits? Did resetting the Individual Mandate penalty to zero uncloak the provision from the saving construction of Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius? This Note posits that, had the Court reached the merits, it would have found the Individual Mandate no longer met the requirements for classification as a tax under the rule relied on in NFIB. Moreover, it argues that the Court would have found the unconstitutional provision to be inseverable from the ACA insofar as it was integral to funding both the novel structure of the reformed healthcare system and the prohibition against insurance carriers denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition. This examination ultimately reveals that an outright repeal of the ACA would have been antidemocratic in the face of current consensus opinion that favors the reform and highlights the impact its abrogation would have had.

Health-care workforce implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

The Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision, which revoked the constitutional right to abortion in the USA, has impacted the national medical workforce. Impacts vary across states, but providers in states with restrictive abortion laws now must contend with evolving legal and ethical challenges that have the potential to affect workforce safety, mental health, education, and training opportunities, in addition to having serious impacts on patient health and far-reaching societal consequences. Moreover, Dobbs has consequences on almost every facet of the medical workforce, including on physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and others who work within the health-care system. Comprehensive research is urgently needed to understand the wide-ranging implications of Dobbs on the medical workforce, including legal, ethical, clinical, and psychological dimensions, to inform evidence-based policies and standards of care in abortion-restrictive settings. Lessons from the USA might also have global relevance for countries facing similar restrictions on reproductive care.

Societal implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization marked the removal of the constitutional right to abortion in the USA, introducing a complex ethical and legal landscape for patients and providers. This shift has had immediate health and equity repercussions, but it is also crucial to examine the broader impacts on states, health-care systems, and society as a whole. Restrictions on abortion access extend beyond immediate reproductive care concerns, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of the ruling's consequences across micro and macro levels. To mitigate potential harm, it is imperative to establish a research agenda that informs policy making and ensures effective long-term monitoring and reporting, addressing both immediate and future impacts.

In Vitro Fertilization, State Wrongful Death Statutes and State Fetal Homicide Statutes: The Reaction to LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine.

The Alabama Supreme Court recently held, in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, that the parents of human embryos that were negligently destroyed at a fertility clinic could bring an action for damages under the State's wrongful death statute. Although the Alabama legislature promptly enacted a law essentially overturning the state supreme court's decision, concerns have been raised that the court's decision might influence courts in other States to interpret their wrongful death statutes, or possibly even their fetal homicide statutes, to apply in similar circumstances, thereby threatening the availability of in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology. This article addresses those concerns.With respect to wrongful death statutes, only fourteen States (excluding Alabama) have interpreted their statutes to apply to unborn children without regard to their stage of gestation or development. The majority of States impose a gestational requirement (typically, viability) which would preclude their application to the destruction of human embryos. Even with respect to the minority of States that impose no limitation on the cause of action, those statutes, either by their express language or by fair interpretation, would not apply to unimplanted human embryos.With respect to the fetal homicide statutes in thirty-one States that do not have any gestational or developmental limitation, the statutes in twenty-six of those States apply only to acts causing the death of an unborn child in utero. As to the statutes in the other five States, the structure of the statute, considered in light of the applicable case law, strongly suggests that there would be no liability for causing the death of an unborn child before implantation. In sum, the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in LePage is not likely to be followed as a precedent in interpreting either the wrongful death statutes or the fetal homicide statutes of any other State.

Inflation in 2022 did not affect congressional voting, but abortion did.

This study examines voting in the 2022 United States congressional elections, contests that were widely expected to produce a sizable defeat for Democratic candidates for largely economic reasons. Based on a representative national probability sample of voters interviewed in both 2020 and 2022, individuals who changed their vote from one party's congressional candidate to another party's candidate did not do so in response to the salience of inflation or declining economic conditions. Instead, we find strong evidence that views on abortion were central to shifting votes in the midterm elections. Americans who favored (opposed) legal abortions were more likely to shift from voting for Republican (Democratic) candidates in 2020 to Democratic (Republican) candidates in 2022. Since a larger number of Americans supported than opposed legal abortions, the combination of these shifts ultimately improved the electoral prospects of Democratic candidates. New voters were especially likely to weigh abortion views heavily in their vote-shifting calculus. Likewise, those respondents whose confidence in the US Supreme Court declined from 2020 to 2022 were more likely to shift from voting for Republican to Democratic congressional candidates. We provide direct empirical evidence that changes in support for the Supreme Court, a nonpartisan branch of the federal government, are implicated in partisan voting behavior in another branch of government. We explore the implications of these findings for prevalent assumptions about how economic conditions influence voting, as well as for the relationship between the judiciary and electoral politics.