Los profesionales de la sanidad no son autoridad a efectos penales / Healthcare professionals are not authority in Spanish criminal law

La atribución de la condición de autoridad a efectos penales a los profesionales de la sanidad pública es un error que viene repitiéndose desde antes de la reforma del ordenamiento penal español del año 2015 (LO 1/2015, de 30 de marzo). Este trabajo recoge esta problemática y, en particular, cómo se repite en la actualidad en resoluciones judiciales, literatura científica, manifestaciones de colegios profesionales y medios de comunicación, generando una situación confusa, sobre todo por la diferencia en las consecuencias punitivas que esta apreciación supone. Incluso se reclama la posibilidad de que la consideración de autoridad se extienda al ámbito privado. Esto resulta inviable, puesto que ni es aplicable a la sanidad pública ni los profesionales de la sanidad privada detentan tan siquiera la condición de funcionario público

The attribution of the status of authority in Criminal Law to public health professionals is a mistake that is been repeated even before the reform of the Spanish penal system in 2015 (Organic Law 1/2015 of 30 March). This work describes this problem and, in particular, how it is repeated today in judgments, scientific literature, and demonstrations from professional associations and media. This creates a confusing situation, particularly due to the differences in the punitive consequences. The attribution of the status of authority is even expected to be extended to the private healthcare. This is unworkable, since it does not apply to public health workers, and private health professionals do not even have the status of public servants

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program: Expiration of Coverage of Children of Same-Sex Domestic Partners; Federal Flexible Benefits Plan: Pre-Tax Payment of Health Benefits Premiums: Conforming Amendments. Final rule.

On October 30, 2013, OPM published final regulations in the Federal Register to expand coverage for children of same-sex domestic partners under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program and the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP). The regulation allowed children of same-sex domestic partners living in states that did not allow same-sex couples to marry to be covered family members under the FEHB and the FEDVIP. Due to a subsequent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all states, OPM published an interim final regulation on December 2, 2016, that created a regulatory exception that only allowed children of same-sex domestic partners living overseas to maintain their FEHB and FEDVIP coverage until September 30, 2018. OPM recognized that there were additional requirements placed on overseas federal employees that did not apply to other civilian employees with duty stations in the United States making it difficult to travel to the United States to marry their same-sex partners. Understanding that we have provided agencies with additional time for compliance given that overseas federal employees may not have been able to marry immediately following the Supreme Court decision, OPM is issuing a final rule removing references to domestic partners and domestic partnerships from the regulations. Based on the Supreme Court decision and the two additional year's lead time for domestic partners overseas to marry, the current language in the CFR is not needed and may be somewhat confusing. There is no change in coverage for children whose same-sex partners are married.

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: Removal of Eligible and Ineligible Individuals From Existing Enrollments. Final rule.

The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule amending Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program regulations to provide a process for removal of certain identified individuals who are found not to be eligible as family members from FEHB enrollments. This process would apply to individuals for whom there is a failure to provide adequate documentation of eligibility when requested. This action also amends Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program regulations to allow certain eligible family members to be removed from existing self and family or self plus one enrollments.

Sexual Harassment Policies and Training in State Legislatures.

(1) Sexual harassment is a violation of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. (2) Most states do not require employers to conduct sexual harassment training. (3) Most sexual harassment training for state legislators occurs at their orientation.