Suchergebnisse

In 2018, the US Supreme Court analyzed a California state requirement that clinics serving pregnant women must provide government notices—1 for licensed clinics about the availability of state health services including abortion and 1 for unlicensed clinics, notifying potential clients that the clinics are not licensed medical facilities and have no licensed medical professionals on-site. The Supreme Court found that both notices violated the First Amendment rights of the clinics. The Supreme Court's opinion elicits new uncertainties about the government's ability to require the disclosure of factual information in the context of reproductive health services and more broadly in the commercial context. However, the Supreme Court's silence on 1 of the state's purposes for the unlicensed clinic notice, which was to address deceptive speech by the clinics, highlights a potential avenue for future regulation. Policymakers can require the disclosure of factual information in the commercial context specifically to prevent consumer deception consistent with the First Amendment. Public health researchers can generate evidence to support such disclosure requirements intended to protect health and safety.

Discrimination causes health inequities for stigmatized groups. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals, in particular, are at significantly increased risk for disparate health outcomes when they reside in states that fail to extend equal protections to them or that actively deprive equal rights to them. Several states and the federal government have proposed or enacted laws that permit residents to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals. One such law, Arkansas's Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act of 2015, preempts or prohibits local governments from enacting civil rights protections for LGBTQ individuals that are also lacking at the state level. State laws such as Arkansas's undermine local control, damage the economy, and create injustices that harm LGBTQ people. I set forth 2 constitutional arguments to challenge such laws, and I provide information to help advocates support evidence-based policymaking and prevent the passage of similar laws in their states.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act revised the law related to workplace wellness programs, which have become part of the nation's broader health strategy. Health-contingent programs are required to be reasonably designed. However, the regulatory requirements are lax and might undermine program efficacy in terms of both health gains and financial return. I propose a method for the government to support a best-practices approach by considering an accreditation or certification process. Additionally I discuss the need for program evaluation and the potential for employers to be subject to litigation if programs are not carefully implemented.

The recent Institute of Medicine recommendation to the Food and Drug Administration to include added sugar in a new front-of-package system provides new justification for reviewing outdated regulations pertinent to sugar and analyzing whether the government's previous resistance to sugar labeling remains valid given new and robust science.

School buses, a practical necessity for millions of children, are at the center of new efforts to raise revenue. School bus advertising laws bring public health and commercialization concerns to the school setting. In doing so, they potentially expose school districts to First Amendment lawsuits.