All content categorized with: Health
Filter
Post List
The Federal Bureau of Prisons: Willfully Ignorant or Maliciously Unlawful?
The Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and the larger U.S. government either purposely ignore the plight of men with serious mental illness in the federal prison system or maliciously act in violation of the law. I have no way of knowing which it is. In a complex system comprising many individual actors, motivations are most likely complex and contradictory. Either way, uncontrovertibly, the BOP and the U.S. government, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, continuously assert that there are no men with serious mental illnesses housed in the federal supermax prison, the Administrative Maximum facility in Florence, Colorado, also known as ADX. Men and women with serious mental illnesses may not be constitutionally assigned to supermax confinement. Even BOP's own policies forbid the placement of anyone with a serious mental illness in the ADX. The government claims no one with a serious mental illness is in the ADX. Nonetheless, the place is full of men who by any definition have serious mental illnesses. Any thorough review of the 433 men at the ADX would demonstrate that about one-third of the men suffer a severe mental illness. The prison is filled with men who have been previously found unfit to stand trial, men who have long-standing histories of intensive psychiatric treatment, men who take antipsychotic medication, men who decorate their cells with their own feces, and men who mutilate their own bodies. After an investigation, the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and the law firm Arnold & Porter, LLP filed suit on behalf of several individuals and a putative class. The U.S. Department of Justice defends the status quo at the ADX and has moved to dismiss the entire lawsuit for failure to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. As of this writing, it shows no intention of addressing the systemic failures that have led to so many men with serious mental illnesses being placed at the ADX.Litigating against an Epidemic: HIV/AIDS and the Promise of Socioeconomic Rights in South Africa
With one of the highest incidence rates in the world, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has taken a large toll on South Africa. Despite medical advances that have made the disease more manageable, many South Africans still do not have access to the medicines needed to control the disease. At the same time, the Constitution of South Africa grants individuals far-reaching socioeconomic rights, including the right to access health care. This Comment explores the intersection of the socioeconomic rights and the HIV/AIDS crisis. Although the Constitutional Court has developed a deferential approach to enforcing socioeconomic rights, substantial room remains to litigate on behalf of those afected by HIV/AIDS. Building off the judgment in the Treatment Action Campaign case, this Comment argues that further litigation should be used to hold the government to the standards of the Constitution and to mitigate the impact of the epidemic.Finding a Cure in the Courts: A Private Right of Action for Disparate Impact in Health Care
There is no comprehensive civil rights statute in health care comparable to the Fair Housing Act, Title VII, and similar laws that have made other aspects of society more equal. After Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI served this purpose for suits based on race, color, and national origin for almost four decades. Since the Supreme Court's 2001 ruling in Alexander v. Sandoval, however, there has been no private right of action for disparate impact claims under Title VI, and civil rights enforcement in health care has suffered as a result. Congress has passed new legislation in response to past Supreme Court decisions that read civil rights law too narrowly. In that tradition, this Note argues that courts may interpret S. 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as creating a private right of action for disparate impact in health care that is available to diverse protected classes.Eatin’ Good? Not in This Neighborhood: A Legal Analysis of Disparities in Food Availability and Quality at Chain Supermarkets in Poverty-Stricken Areas
Many Americans-especially the poor-face severe hurdles in their attempts to secure the most basic of human needs-food. One reason for this struggle is the tendency of chain supermarkets to provide a limited selection of goods and a lower quality of goods to patrons in less affluent neighborhoods. Healthier items such as soy milks, fresh fish, and lean meats are not present in these stores, and the produce that is present is typically well past the peak of freshness. Yet, if the same patron were to go to another supermarket owned by the same chain--but located in a wealthier neighborhood-she would find a wide selection of healthy foods and fresh produce. What are the poor people who live in the inner cities--who are disproportionately African American and Latino-to do? How can they obtain healthy food against these odds? This Article argues that the actions of the supermarkets are unconscionable, and therefore proposes a federal law that will prevent chain grocery stores from engaging in such practices. The Article first examines the scope of the problem created by these supermarket practices. The Article then explains why current laws are inadequate to address this issue. Finally, the Article proposes that Congress use its authority under the Commerce Clause to enact legislation that would require supermarket chains to carry the same selection and quality of goods at all stores in the same chain.Racial Profiling in Health Care: An Institutional Analysis of Medical Treatment Disparities
This Article links unscientific, race-based medical research to a broader, institutionalized pattern of racial profiling of Blacks in clinical decision-making. Far from providing a solution to the problem of racial health disparities, this Article shows that race-based health research fuels a collection of dubious background assumptions, creates a negative profile of Black patients, and reinforces taken-for-granted knowledge that leads to inferior medical treatment. This form of racial profiling is unjust, and also causes countless unnecessary deaths in the Black population.Blood Will Tell: Scientific Racism and the Legal Prohibitions Against Miscegenation
This article first examines the miscegenation paradigm in terms of a seven-point conceptual framework that not merely allowed but practically demanded anti-miscegenation laws, then looks at the legal arguments state courts used to justify the constitutionality of such laws through 1967. Next, it analyzes the Biblical argument, which in its own right justified miscegenation, but also had a major influence on the development of the three major strands of scientific racism: monogenism, polygenism and Darwinian theory. It then probes the concept upon which the entire edifice is constructed-race--and discusses the continuing vitality of this construct. Next, this article turns to the three major strands of scientific racism and briefly develops more modem theories that continued the racist tradition well into the Twentieth Century. The article then looks at the effects of scientific racism on the thoughts and actions of the founding fathers and the Reconstruction-era Congress before turning to the long line of state cases upholding miscegenation statutes, in part by relying on scientific racism. Finally, it discusses the handful of cases that question the constitutionality of antimiscegenation statutes, including Perez v. Lippold and Loving v. Virginia.The Charleston Policy: Substance or Abuse?
In 1989, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) adopted a policy that, according to subjective criteria, singled out for drug testing, certain women who sought prenatal care and childbirth services would be tested for prohibited substances. Women who tested positive were arrested, incarcerated and prosecuted for crimes ranging from misdemeanor substance possession to felony substance distribution to a minor. In this Article, the Author argues that by intentionally targeting indigent Black women for prosecution, the MUSC Policy continued the United States legacy of their systematic oppression and resulted in the criminalizing of Black Motherhood.
