HealthLawProf Blog

Editor: Katharine Van Tassel
Creighton University School of Law

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Call for papers for the section on Law, Medicine, and Health Care session at the 2016 AALS meeting

I'd hoped by now that King v. Burwell, argued March 4, would have been decided by now (but unsurprisingly it has not).  Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center was decided in late March.  InArmstrong, the Court rejected the 9th Circuit's approach to challenges to low Medicaid reimbursement rates.  The 9th Circuit had held that providers could bring suit under the Supremacy Clause arguing that state decisions conflicted with federal law, specifically section 30(A) of the Medicaid Act's requirement that reimbursements be sufficient for Medicaid recipients to receive care to the same extent as others in the community. The Court held that the Supremacy Clause is a rule of decision about which law to apply, not a source for substantive rights.  But the Court went further, also concluding that section 30(A) leaves discretion about approval of Medicaid reimbursement with the Secretary of HHS and does not permit courts to consider equitable remedies in these cases. Medicaid providers are understandably disturbed by the decision, and advocates for Medicaid recipients are worried that broad language in the decision will preclude remedies for them as well. Whatever happens in King v. Burwell, Medicaid is sure to remain a thorny legal issue for the near future at least.

Our section program for the 2016 meeting will address challenges to Medicaid availability and access and what legal means might be available to meet these challenges.  Confirmed speakers are MaryBeth Musumeci, from the Kaiser Family Foundation; John Jacobi, Seton Hall University; and Sidney Watson, Saint Louis University.  We are issuing a call for papers from which one or two additional speakers will be selected for the session.  The St Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy has agreed to publish a symposium issue featuring the papers from the session. Abstracts (up to 500 words) should be submitted to Leslie Francis,, section chair-elect, by September 1, 2015.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 
Thanks, Leslie Francis


May 23, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, April 10, 2015

'The Week in Health Law' Podcast

This week we are joined by Mark Rothstein, the Herbert F. Boehl Chair of Law and Medicine and the Founding Director of the Institute for Bioethics, Health Policy and Law at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. One of Mark's recent papers concerns Ethical Issues in Big Data Health Research. We discuss that as well as Apple's ResearchKit  (See Nic's blog post at Bill of Rights) and the Twihl 14x14Administration's proposed Privacy Bill of Rights (See Nic's blog post at Health Affairs).

The Week in Health Law Podcast from Frank Pasquale and Nicolas Terry is a commuting-length discussion about some of the more thorny issues in Health Law & Policy.

Subscribe at iTunes, listen at Stitcher Radio and Podbean, or search for The Week in Health Law in your favorite podcast app.

Show notes and more are at If you have comments, an idea for a show or a topic to discuss you can find us on twitter @nicolasterry @FrankPasquale @WeekInHealthLaw

April 10, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, April 3, 2015

'The Week in Health Law' Podcast

This week Ross Silverman joins us to discuss HR2 Minutiae, his NEJM take on Vaccination Law & Policy, and Indiana's HIV Emergency Order. Twihl 14x14

The Week in Health Law Podcast from Frank Pasquale and Nicolas Terry is a commuting-length discussion about some of the more thorny issues in Health Law & Policy.

Subscribe at iTunes, listen at Stitcher Radio and Podbean, or search for The Week in Health Law in your favorite podcast app.

Show notes and more are at If you have comments, an idea for a show or a topic to discuss you can find us on twitter @nicolasterry @FrankPasquale @WeekInHealthLaw 

April 3, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

"Very Real Consequences" for Medicaid and Beyond

Back in January, I commented on the oral arguments in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, the Medicaid reimbursement case that the Supreme Court decided yesterday.  I noted then that Justice Breyer seemed confused about Medicaid's operation; that Justice Kennedy appeared to be on the fence; and that the four dissenters from Douglas v. Independent Living Center appeared wedded their 2012 position that no private right of action is available under the Supremacy Clause.  Sure enough, the Court eliminated private enforcement of the Medicaid Act's payment adequacy provision ("30(A)") against non-compliant states.  This decision is a major victory for states, a questionable victory for the Obama Administration, and a potential defeat for access to care in the Medicaid program.

Justice Scalia authored the majority opinion (joined by Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Breyer), which began with an intentional description of Medicaid as a Spending Clause program.  Justice Scalia noted that states agree to spend federal funds "in accordance with congressionally imposed conditions."  The majority then effectively constructed a clear notice rule for the Supremacy Clause, indicating that the Supremacy Clause provides a "rule of construction" but does not "create a cause of action" unless Congress "permits the enforcement of its laws by private actors."  Although purporting to empower Congress, the majority actually limited the reach of federal legislation by requiring Congress to explicitly confer private rights of action under federal laws.  As a Brief by Former Administrators of HHS made clear (in Douglas and again in Armstrong), Congress and HHS rely on private actions to enforce the Medicaid Act, in part because the law has such a broad reach and the agency's staffing is so limited.  Contrary to the majority's bizarre characterization of private enforcement of federal laws as limiting, in the Medicaid context, private enforcement is critical for implementing the purposes of 30(A), which was written to ensure equal access to medical care for Medicaid beneficiaries.  30(A) requires on-the-ground observation for assessing states' payment adequacy, which HHS cannot do without the assistance provided by privately initiated enforcement actions.

The majority then cited Chief Justice Roberts' dissent in Douglas to support its position that Congress deliberately excluded private enforcement from the Medicaid Act.  This is simply not true. Congress did not "foreclose" or "exclude" private enforcement from the Medicaid Act, either in 1965 when Medicaid was enacted, or when 30(A) amended the Act.  In fact, Congress debated language that would have prevented providers and beneficiaries from seeking relief in federal court when states violate the Medicaid Act, but Congress never has added such language to the Medicaid Act.  Nevertheless, the majority concluded that the Secretary of HHS is solely responsible for enforcing 30(A) pursuant to her authority under 42 U.S.C. §1396c to withhold Medicaid funds from non-compliant states.  The Secretary is reluctant to withhold funds in Medicaid because such an act would harm beneficiaries, but the majority did not engage this quandary, instead deeming 30(A) judicially unmanageable, even though lower federal courts have guided states toward adequate payment decisions for years.  The majority also seems to be setting up HHS to fail; if the agency actually withheld Medicaid funding, the state might respond with a claim of coercion under NFIB v. Sebelius, thereby further undermining the program's operations.  (Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy would have struck down the Medicaid expansion in its entirety under the newly crafted doctrine of coercion in that case.)

The majority circled back to Medicaid's status as a spending program in Part IV of its opinion, which Justice Breyer did not join, and which may resurrect a theory of spending programs as being like contracts and unlike other federal laws.  Though the Court has long relied on the Pennhurst contract analogy for federal conditional spending programs, in some cases (e.g. Barnes v. Gorman), the Court has suggested that the "third party beneficiaries" of spending programs have no enforceable rights in those programs.  The majority opinion very briefly noted that "contracts between two governments" cannot be enforced by beneficiaries of those contracts - citing Justice Thomas's concurrence in PhRMA v. Walsh - as if the federal government and the states were co-equal sovereigns.  This dicta brings all Medicaid provider and patient actions into question, whether they are raised under the Supremacy Clause or section 1983, the other avenue for Medicaid private enforcement.  The majority thus opened the courthouse doors to further eroding of conditional spending statutes in the context of the Medicaid Act. [more after the jump]

Continue reading

April 1, 2015 in Constitutional, Health Care, HHS, Medicaid, Spending, Unconstitutional | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, March 27, 2015

'The Week in Health Law' Podcast

By Nicolas Terry

This week Erin Fuse Brown joins us to discuss Irrational Hospital Pricing, Price Transparency, the likely SGR Fix, and Non-Profit Tax Status. Twihl 14x14

The Week in Health Law Podcast from Frank Pasquale and Nicolas Terry is a commuting-length discussion about some of the more thorny issues in Health Law & Policy.

Subscribe at iTunes, listen at Stitcher Radio and Podbean, or search for The Week in Health Law in your favorite podcast app.

Show notes and more are at If you have comments, an idea for a show or a topic to discuss you can find us on twitter @nicolasterry @FrankPasquale @WeekInHealthLaw

March 27, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Should Health Lawyers Pay Attention To The Administration’s Privacy Bill?

Cross Posted from Health Affairs Blog

Health care lawyers justifiably ignored the 2012 Obama administration consumer privacy framework because it expressly and broadly exempted entities subject to HIPAA, stating “To avoid creating duplicative regulatory burdens, the Administration supports exempting companies from consumer data privacy legislation to the extent that their activities are subject to existing Federal data privacy laws.”

In contrast, the administration’s 2015 draft bill, the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act, though based on that framework, substantially affects health care entities, including those subject to HIPAA, and so demands more attention in the health law community.

Continue reading

March 19, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Symposium-Medical Myths: Exploring Effectiveness, Misinformation and Scientific Rigor

The IU Robert H. McKinney School of Law's Hall Center for Law and Health and Indiana Health Law Review Annual Symposium will be held on Friday, March 27, 2015. This year's topic is: Medical Myths: Exploring Effectiveness, Misinformation and Scientific Rigor. Untitled

Keynote by Aaron E. Carroll, MD, MS., well known physician and author (& blogger).

Other speakers include David Hyman, Norm Tabler, Ross Silverman, Doug Blanke, Kristin Madison, Paul Helft, Tim McBride and David Orentlicher. Lunch keynote by Matthew R. Gutwein, JD. President and CEO, Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County.

More information here.

March 17, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, March 12, 2015

'The Week in Health Law' Podcast

By Nicolas Terry

This week Lindsay Wiley joins us to discuss "New Public Health" and we debate the value and validity of wellness plans.

Twihl 14x14The Week in Health Law Podcast from Frank Pasquale and Nicolas Terry is a commuting-length discussion about some of the more thorny issues in Health Law & Policy.

Subscribe at iTunes, listen at Stitcher Radio and Podbean, or search for The Week in Health Law in your favorite podcast app.

Show notes and more are at If you have comments, an idea for a show or a topic to discuss you can find us at @nicolasterry @FrankPasquale

March 12, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Duquesne Law Seeks Health Law VAP

Duquesne University School of Law invites applications for a visiting assistant professor for the 2015-2016 academic year. Although the appointment is only a one-year, non-tenure-track appointment with a 9-month contract, if the law school has an opening for the 2016-2017 academic year, either for a visitor or for a tenure-track position, the visiting assistant professor will be entitled to apply. Teaching and scholarship responsibilities will focus on the area of Health Care (e.g., Health Law, Health Care Organization & Finance, Health Care Fraud & Abuse) with other areas of the teaching and scholarship package subject to negotiation. Applicants should have superior academic credentials and a record, or the promise, of excellence in teaching and legal scholarship, preferably in the area for which the appointment is sought. Previous teaching and practical experience is desirable. Entry-level applicants may demonstrate scholarly promise by publications in scholarly journals or scholarly works in progress. 

Interested candidates should submit a letter of interest and a curriculum vitae to We especially encourage applications from racial minorities, women, and others who would enrich the diversity of our academic community.

The position remains open until March 31, 2015.


March 11, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, March 9, 2015

Replacing the Affordable Care Act?

With the future of the Affordable Care Act in doubt after last week’s hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican lawmakers are busily preparing back-up legislation. New options should not be necessary—the government should prevail against those challenging its interpretation of the Act’s premium subsidy provisions. But it is prudent to consider alternatives in the event that the Court rules against the government.

While most of the ideas being floated would do little to bring health care insurance to the uninsured, there is an option that really could expand access to coverage while also containing health care spending. And it could be attractive to Republicans and Democrats alike on Capitol Hill.

Continue reading

March 9, 2015 in Access, Affordable Care Act, Health Care, Health Care Costs, Health Care Reform, Health Reform, Policy, Politics, PPACA, Reform, Spending | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, March 5, 2015

The Week in Health Law Podcast

By Nicolas Terry

This week Abigail Moncrieff joins us to discuss the King v. Burwell oral arguments, the story behind the amicus brief she authored, and what it was like to hear Justice Kennedy talk about the issue she raised. Twihl 14x14

The Week in Health Law Podcast from Frank Pasquale and Nicolas Terry is a commuting-length discussion about some of the more thorny issues in Health Law & Policy.

Subscribe at iTunes, listen at Stitcher Radio and Podbean, or search for The Week in Health Law in your favorite podcast app.

Show notes and more are at If you have comments, an idea for a show or a topic to discuss you can find us at @nicolasterry @FrankPasquale

March 5, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Oral Arguments in King v. Burwell, and thoughts about additional implications for the case

Oral arguments ran over an hour in King v. Burwell today (transcript available here). As many are aware, the question in this case involves whether the IRS appropriately interpreted the ACA to authorize tax credits for insurance policies purchased on both state-based and federally-based health insurance exchanges.  The plaintiffs claimed that the IRS has acted illegally in providing tax credits through federally-run exchanges, and if they are successful, the IRS will immediately cease offering subsidies to individuals who have purchased health insurance in federally-run exchanges.  

Reading oral arguments is always less satisfying than hearing or witnessing them, but reading the tea leaves is still irresistible when justices appear to reveal their positions.  For example,  Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer appeared to agree with the arguments put forth by the United States. Justices Scalia and Alito appeared to agree with Mr. Carvin and the plaintiffs, though Justice Alito appeared open to some of statutory answers being provided by Solicitor General Verrilli toward the end of his argument.  The Chief Justice was almost silent during the oral arguments, and Justice Kennedy raised his favorite topic, federalism, and whether Carvin's interpretation of the ACA can lead to unprecedented coercion of the states, raising a fatal constitutional consequence for what should otherwise be an exercise in legislative interpretation.

This line of questioning is worth considering for a moment.  Readers are probably aware that the doctrine of coercion was merely a theory until the Court breathed life into it in NFIB v. Sebelius.  In that decision, the Court held that the ACA's Medicaid expansion was unconstitutionally coercive because states, in the plurality's view, had to choose between expanding Medicaid to childless, non-elderly adults or losing all of their Medicaid funding.  But, the structure of Medicaid is quite different from the structure of the exchanges.  If a state rejects Medicaid funding, then that state has no Medicaid program within its borders - this form of cooperative federalism facilitated the coercion analysis in NFIB, because the states successfully argued that they could not realistically leave the program.  The exchanges, on the other hand, epitomize 'backstop federalism' - if a state rejected funding to create a state-based exchange, then the federal government would step in (and it did).  

Initially, it was unclear what Justice Kennedy was pursuing in his federalism questioning, because he seemed to indicate that he perceived the Medicaid-style federalism at work in the exchanges.  He later clarified, however, that he was concerned about the ramifications of the challengers' theory, that Congress intended to deny subsidies in states that refused to establish exchanges, thereby obliquely and opaquely threatening states by refusing to offer tax credits to their citizens.  Not only is this interpretation of the ACA plainly wrong, but it would also create a bizarre conditional spending situation where the states did not know they were being threatened until long after they decided to reject federal policy.  Justice Kennedy indicated that this reading of the statute would result in a "serious constitutional problem" that should be avoided, and he is right.  But, he was also skeptical about the actual language of the statute, so the U.S. cannot yet breathe easy.

 One additional observation for now - the impact on health insurance access will be even greater than the parties discussed.  If the IRS ends subsidies for insurance policies purchased through the federal exchange, the current tally indicates that approximately 8 million people will lose the subsidies that make insurance affordable for them.  While they will not be subject to a tax penalty for failure to carry health insurance, they also will not be able to afford health insurance.  That is immediately clear.  But, the ripples will be greater than the 8 million, because some states that have obtained waivers to expand Medicaid are placing their newly eligible Medicaid populations into the exchanges.  If the exchanges experience a death spiral due to increased premiums and loss of covered lives in the risk pool, then the exchanges become a very unstable way to provide Medicaid coverage and likely become unaffordable for states.  Demonstration waivers are supposed to be budget neutral, which would become impossible in plans like Arkansas' if the plaintiffs win this case.  Further, low-income individuals tend to churn between Medicaid and private insurance coverage - but if the insurance offered through federal exchanges is not subsidized, then they will churn into uninsured status, thereby increasing dramatically the number of lives affected by this decision.  

Of course, if the Court upholds the IRS interpretation of the ACA, then we can all go back to waiting for the next challenge to come along.

March 4, 2015 in Affordable Care Act, Health Care Reform, Health Reform, Medicaid, Obama Administration, PPACA, Spending | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, March 2, 2015

Published This Week

Thursday, February 26, 2015

tenBroek Symposium

For anyone interested, this is a fantastic symposium, bringing together academics, practitioners, and disability advocates.

Leslie Francis

2015 Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium


The ADA at Fifty: The Future of Disability Law and the Right to Live in the World


March 26-27, 2015

at the

National Federation of the Blind Jernigan Institute

Baltimore, Maryland


Join leading disability rights advocates from throughout the United States in celebration of the Americans with Disabilities Act by looking ahead to the next twenty-five years. The 2015 Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium will consist of plenary sessions and workshops facilitated by distinguished law professors, practitioners, and advocates who will discuss topics such as: the future of disability, how to enable the participation of people with disabilities in court proceedings, the unique challenges faced by criminal suspects and offenders with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and a vision for the next twenty-five years to improve and augment the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and IDEA. Presenters include:

  • Peter Blanck, University Professor and Chairman, Burton Blatt Institute, Syracuse University
  • Chief Judge Richard S. Brown, Wisconsin Court of Appeals
  • Leigh Ann Davis, Program Manager, National Center on Criminal Justice and Disability, The Arc
  • Robert Dinerstein, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
  • David Ferleger, Esquire, Law Office of David Ferleger
  • Beverly Frantz, Criminal Justice and Sexuality Project Director, Institute on Disabilities, Temple University
  • Daniel F. Goldstein, Partner, Brown, Goldstein and Levy
  • Christine M. Griffin, Executive Director, Disability Law Center of Massachusetts
  • Arlene S. Kanter; Bond, Schoeneck, and King Distinguished Professor; Syracuse University College of Law
  • Marc Maurer, Immediate Past President, National Federation of the Blind
  • Arlene B. Mayerson, Directing Attorney, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
  • Ari Ne'eman, Co-founder and President, Autistic Self Advocacy Network
  • Laurence Paradis, Executive Director and Co-director of Litigation, Disability Rights Advocates
  • Mark Riccobono, President, National Federation of the Blind
  • Howard A. Rosenblum, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of the Deaf
  • Fredric K. Schroeder, Research Professor, San Diego State University Research Foundation; First Vice President, World Blind Union
  • Anita Silvers, Professor and Chair of Philosophy, San Francisco State University
  • Christopher Slobogin; Milton R. Underwood Chair in Law; Director, Criminal Justice Program, Vanderbilt University Law School; Affiliate Professor of Psychiatry; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
  • Judge Richard B. Teitelman, Supreme Court of Missouri
  • Kathryn Walker, Criminal Justice Fellow, The Arc
  • Michael Waterstone, Visiting Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law; J. Howard Ziemann Fellow and Professor of Law, Loyola Law School Los Angeles


To view the agenda, or for more information about the symposium, hotel accommodations, and symposium sponsorship opportunities, please visit


Registration fee: $175

Student registration fee: $25


You can register online by going to:


You may also download from the symposium website a registration form to mail or fax. 


Documentation for CLE credits will be provided.


For additional information, contact:


Lou Ann Blake, JD

Law Symposium Coordinator

Jernigan Institute

National Federation of the Blind

200 East Wells Street

at Jernigan Place

Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Telephone: 410-659-9314, ext. 2221


February 26, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

‘The Week in Health Law’ Podcast

Frank Pasquale and Nicolas Terry are pleased to announce The Week in Health Law Podcast. We (and our guests) enjoy a commuting-length discussion about some of the more thorny issues in Health Law & Policy.

Twihl 14x14

Subscribe at iTunes, listen at Stitcher Radio and Podbean, or search for The Week in Health Law in your favorite podcast app.

This week, a special treat, as we are joined by Nicole Huberfeld to discuss Medicaid expansion (as well as Google health searches and bending the safety curve).

Show notes and more are at If you have comments, an idea for a show or a topic to discuss you can find us @nicolasterry @FrankPasquale

February 24, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Doctors Conducting Peer Review Can Recover Compensatory and Punitive Damages for Confidentiality Violations

Hat tip to Alex Stein for the following post:

The Supreme Court of New Mexico has recently delivered an important decision protecting peer reviewers’ statutory entitlement to confidentiality. Yedidag v. Roswell Clinic Corp., — P.3d —- (N.M. 2015), 2015 WL 691333. The Court ruled that peer reviewers can sue violators of their confidentiality right and recover compensatory and even punitive damages. This ruling applied the common law criteria for identifying statutory violations as a breach of contract. Based on those criteria, the Court categorized peer reviewers as members of the class protected by the peer review statute, who deserve remedies for violations of their confidentiality right. The Court also estimated that the criminal penalty imposed by the statute on the right’s violators was too lenient to discourage violations. The Court projected that allowing peer reviewers to sue violators will compensate for the resulting shortfall in deterrence. As a conceptual matter, the Court decided that peer reviewers’ confidentiality entitlement is a “mandatory rule of law incorporated into physician-reviewer employment contracts.”

This decision was followed by a ruling against the hospital that terminated the employment of a doctor for “verbally attacking” a colleague at a peer review meeting. The alleged “verbal attack” included tough questions that addressed the colleague’s removal of one malignant tumor from a deceased patient’s colon, instead of two. The hospital perceived these questions as “unprofessional conduct” that justified the doctor’s termination, but the Court profoundly disagreed. The Court decided that the doctor’s questions – even if uncivilized – were privileged, and that it was not within the hospital’s rights to use them (or any other confidential peer review information) as a reason for firing him. Based on that decision, the Court affirmed the jury’s verdict obligating the hospital to pay the doctor compensatory and punitive damages. The Court’s decision relied on several academic works that included Katharine Van Tassel’s important study of the peer review mechanism.

Cross posted from Bill of Health.

February 24, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Published This Week

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Published This Week

Monday, February 16, 2015

Guest Blogger Professor Lawrence O. Gostin: Imagining Global Health with Justice

GostinThe singular insight in global health is that absolute reductions in morbidity and premature morality are not robust indicators of success in the absence of equity. That is, we can achieve high levels of global health but still lag in justice. What would be truly transformative is to achieve both overall population health and fair distribution of the benefits—in other words, Global Health with Justice. What would global health with justice look like? That is the critical problem I explore in Global Health Law (Harvard University Press, 2014, Chinese Translation Forthcoming 2016). Before answering this pivotal question, consider contrasting narratives, showing how global health can exist in a state of inequality.

Global Health Narratives

Gates Foundation/ONE. The Living Proof: Real Lives, Real Progress campaign champions once unimaginable global health achievements. Success stories are pervasive, and with good reason. International assistance has skyrocketed, while child and maternal mortality has plummeted and millions are accessing treatment for HIV/AIDS. Polio eradication is on the horizon, with game-changing vaccines within reach for AIDS and malaria.

This narrative of success is true and inspiring, but also consider the voices of two young people living in poverty, abridged from, Global Health Law:

Namubiru (Gaba, Uganda).   I live in a rowdy place, with no clean water, no good toilets or bathrooms. At night, the conditions worsen, with hardly any electricity. The mosquito noise fills up the place. Cockroaches move around me. My mother would help me with medication fees, but she is dying of AIDS. A lot of sexual violence happens to me. I want to get an education and a job. I am so sad. I need a new life.

Johnny (Blackfeet Tribal Reservation, Montana, USA). I start my day with a cup of Joe, then corral and break horses, and smoke a bowl of weed. My father snorts coke and gets drunk, taking my birthday money. He beats all the kids. When your family is broken due to drugs and alcohol everyone is hurt. What I mean is what little kids get to eat or not to eat, did they get the shoes or clothes they needed, it depends on whether adults do drugs. I want to shout, “when you do meth hey, don’t let your kids be here.” What about the kids?

Continue reading

February 16, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Published This Week