The U.S. men’s and women’s national soccer teams struck a labor deal that closes the contentious pay gap between the squads, an unprecedented step that will equalize both salaries and bonuses, providing a substantial boost to the decorated women’s team.
Thursday, May 26, 2022
New Book The Case of Caroline Norton and the History of Married Women's Loss of Child Custody Rights
***[This is] the tragic story, of Caroline Norton, as conveyed in Fraser’s new book.... Born in 1808, 30 years before Queen Victoria came to the throne, she and her two equally beautiful sisters made a stir when they debuted in society. Her sisters married titled men, while Caroline married George Norton, who, while a younger son, had hopes of a title of his own — but would also turn out to be jealous, violent, petty and unremittingly vicious.***
In 1836, after yet another episode of her husband’s violence, Caroline went to stay with her parents. George moved their children (the youngest not yet 3) to his sister’s house, where he forcibly detained them, refusing Caroline access. He also claimed her earnings as a writer. All this was, at the time, his legal right.
And so, driven by the loss of her children, Caroline did that most unladylike of things: She fought. She fought George in the court of public opinion, writing pamphlets and essays and articles. She fought him in the courts. And he fought back. He sued Lord Melbourne, his patron, for “criminal conversation” with his wife.
Crim. con., as it was known, was not quite the same thing as suing for adultery. It was, rather, a property suit: Since a wife was the legal property of her husband, and adultery reduced the value of that property, the wife’s lover could be sued for financial compensation. George demanded 10,000 pounds from Melbourne, millions in today’s money.
While George did in fact want money, he wanted revenge much more, and by naming Melbourne he focused public attention squarely on his wife. In court, as in life, George Norton did not shine, and, unable to actually prove adultery, he lost the case. But the damage was done: Melbourne, tainted by the scandal, abandoned Caroline Norton, as did her friends.
However, she did not give up. Norton continued to campaign tirelessly for access to her children, and the publicity she brought to the legal situation forced politicians to confront the law. In 1839, the Custody of Infants Act was passed, allowing judges to give custody of children under 7 to the mother.
Maya Manian, Interjurisdictional Abortion Wars in the Post-Roe Era, JOTWELL, reviewing, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, and Rachel Rebouche, The New Abortion Battleground, 122 Col. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2022), available at SSRN.
The Supreme Court appears poised to overrule fifty years of precedent holding that pre-viability prohibitions on abortion are unconstitutional. In a leaked draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Alito proclaims that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey must be overruled and abortion left to the states to regulate. During oral argument in Dobbs, Justice Kavanaugh suggested that overturning Roe would return the Court to a position of “neutrality” on abortion. Justice Kavanaugh’s assertion falls in line with claims by anti-abortion jurists that reversing Roe would simplify abortion law by returning the issue to the states and getting the federal courts out of the hot-button issue of abortion.
In their draft article The New Abortion Battleground, forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review, David Cohen, Greer Donley, and Rachel Rebouche thoroughly disprove the notion that abortion law will become simpler if and when the Court overturns Roe. Given increasingly pitched polarization between red and blue states, the authors show how the abortion wars will continue in the federal courts—but will shift from constitutional battles over fundamental rights to liberty and equality to fights over principles of federalism and interstate comity raised by interjurisdictional conflicts between states and between the federal government and the states. The article is a must read for scholars and legal advocates preparing for the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs.
The article describes interstate conflicts over abortion that will inevitably emerge given that some states will seek to restrict their citizens’ out-of-state travel for abortion care while other states will seek to protect the provision of abortion care to out-of-state patients within their borders. Potential conflicts could also arise between an actively abortion-supportive federal government and anti-abortion states. The article’s primary contribution is to map out the complex legal questions that will ensue from Roe’s reversal on both the horizontal and vertical axes of interjurisdictional conflict.
Molly Pratt, "'He Took It Out.' How Comedic Television Shows Shape Jurors' Perceptions of Workplace Sexual Harassment," 90 U.M.K.C. L. Rev. (2022)
This Comment analyzes the ways in which depictions of sexual harassment in media, specifically situational comedic ("sit-com") television series, affect potential jurors' understanding and evaluation of workplace sexual harassment claims. Part I begins by explaining the "cultivation theory," which hypothesizes that television shapes viewers' beliefs about the world around them. This section also considers social science evidence that exemplifies how people are influenced by different forms of media, especially media depictions that sexually objectify women. Next, Part II describes the elements of the two different types of harassment claims to provide a backdrop of what real humans, not characters on television, endure every day at work. Part III compares two major sensationalized claims of sexual harassment that have occurred over the past thirty years. Part IV summarizes various episodes of Seinfeld, Veep, and Curb Your Enthusiasm that include scenes of sexual harassment in order to analyze how prospective jurors might consider the illegal harassment shown on television almost every night. Finally, Part V proposes actions that can be taken by the legal and entertainment industries to ameliorate the harmful effects that comedic depictions of sexual harassment can have on juries.
Comedic television episodes which downplay workplace sexual harassment situations that would otherwise make for valid claims under Title VII may cause jurors to become desensitized to the severity of real-world harassment experienced by real-world victims. While this Comment aims to illustrate how media consumption affects the breadth of the legal industry, its underlying goal is to shed light on how inaccurate depictions of legal issues can be harmful to a viewer who is untrained in the law.
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
***To help understand how we got to this point, here is a list of 10 books — five that examine the legal, political and social foundations of abortion in America, followed by another five that explore all that abortion has encompassed since Roe: issues of violence and stigma, politics and race, medicine and law, philosophy and medicine.
Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy (1978), by James C. Mohr
Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade (1994), by David Garrow
Before Roe v. Wade: Voices That Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court’s Ruling (2010), by Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel
Abortion & the Politics of Motherhood (1984), by Kristin Luker
Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement before Roe v. Wade (2016), by Daniel K. Williams
After Roe: The Lost History of the Abortion Debate (2015), by Mary Ziegler
Wrath of Angels: The American Abortion War (1998), by James Risen and Judy L. Thomas
Abortion After Roe (2015), by Johanna Schoen
Scarlet A: The Ethics, Law, and Politics of Ordinary Abortion (2018), by Katie Watson
‘What It Means to Be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics (2020), by O. Carter Snead
Stephanie Holmes Didwania, Gender Favoritism Among Criminal Prosecutors, Journal of Law and Economics (Forthcoming)
Prosecutors enjoy wide discretion in the decisions they make but are largely unstudied by quantitative empirical scholars. This paper explores gender bias in prosecutorial decision-making. I find that male and female prosecutors exhibit small and statistically insignificant differences in their treatment of defendants overall but demonstrate relative leniency towards defendants of their own gender. Such favoritism at charging translates into a sentencing gap of roughly five months of incarceration for defendants who are paired with an own-gender prosecutor versus an opposite-gender prosecutor, which represents a roughly eight percent reduction in sentence length at the mean. The estimates do not appear to be driven by differences in case assignments for male and female prosecutors.
The deal was part of new collective bargaining agreements with the U.S. Soccer Federation that were announced Wednesday. It was the culmination of a long battle between the women’s team and the sport’s national governing body, which included a high-profile lawsuit that was settled this year.
The USSF said the agreement makes the United States the first country to achieve equal pay for its men’s and women’s teams.“To finally get to the point where on every economic term it’s equal pay, I am just really proud,” USSF President Cindy Parlow Cone saidThe new CBAs, which still need to be ratified, will equalize World Cup bonuses, something Parlow Cone said no other nation had done. The U.S. teams will pool the World Cup bonuses received from FIFA, the sport’s global governing body, and split them equally, evening out a substantially unequal playing field.
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
Melissa Murray, Op-ed, How the Right to Birth Control Could be Undone, NY Times
The leaked draft opinion of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade has prompted a flurry of debate about the fate of other so-called unenumerated rights — rights that are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution — including the right to access contraception.
According to some commentators, claims that the right to contraception could be on the chopping block are little more than hyperbolic “catastrophizing” that cannot be taken seriously. Prominent constitutional law scholars also have insisted that such claims are little more than baseless fearmongering, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page insisted that liberal fears about overruling rights to contraception and same-sex marriage are little more than an “implausible parade of horribles.”
Such high-level minimizing is not surprising. To understand whether the right to access contraception, like the right to abortion, could be overturned, it’s necessary to pick up on clues in Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion.***
But the same could be said of other unenumerated rights, including, and especially, contraception. Nowhere does the Constitution speak of a right to contraception — the Constitution does not even explicitly mention women. And as many conservatives have noted, the American legal landscape was littered with prohibitions on contraception right up until the court invalidated Connecticut’s ban on contraception in 1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut.Justice Alito himself has already set in motion the means for challenging the right to contraception. In 2014’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the family that owns the craft store company objected on religious grounds to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, which required employers to provide employees with insurance coverage for contraception. Specifically, Hobby Lobby balked at providing its employees with insurance plans that would cover IUDs and emergency contraceptives, like Plan B, based on the unsubstantiated claim that such contraceptives are abortifacients. The court, in an opinion written by Justice Alito, ruled for Hobby Lobby.
Featured on the Legal Theory Blog is Reva Siegel, Serena Mayeri & Melissa Murray, On Equal Protection and the Dobbs Draft, on their article Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond: How States Protect Life Inside and Outside of the Abortion Context, 43 Columbia J. Gender & Law (forthcoming).
In the leaked draft of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito dismissed the Equal Protection Clause as an alternative ground of the abortion right, citing an amicus brief in which we advanced that argument. In dicta, Justice Alito claimed that precedents foreclosed the brief’s arguments (pp. 10-11).
Justice Alito did not address a single equal protection case or argument on which the brief relied. Instead, he cited Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 case decided before the Court extended heightened scrutiny to sex-based state action—a case our brief shows has been superseded by United States v. Virginia and Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs. Justice Alito’s claim to address equal protection precedents without discussing any of these decisions suggests an unwillingness to recognize the last half century of sex equality law—a spirit that finds many forms of expression in the opinion’s due process analysis.
This Essay, written before Justice Alito’s draft leaked, explains the brief’s equal protection arguments for abortion rights, and shows how these equality-based arguments open up crucial conversations that extend far beyond abortion.***
Equality challenges to abortion bans preceded Roe, and will continue long after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, however the Court rules in that case. In this Essay we discuss our amicus brief in Dobbs, demonstrating that Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Monday, May 23, 2022
Deborah Widiss, Pregnant Workers Fairness Acts: Advancing a Progressive Policy in Both Red and Blue America, Nevada L.J. (forthcoming)
Pregnant workers often need small changes—such as permission to sit on a stool or to avoid heavy lifting—to work safely through a pregnancy. Federal law does not explicitly address this need. However, in the past decade, twenty-five states have passed laws that guarantee pregnant employees a right to reasonable accommodations at work. Despite the stark partisan divides in contemporary America, the laws have passed in both Republican- and Democratic-controlled states. This Essay, written for a symposium on using state legislation to advance civil rights, offers the first relatively-detailed case study of this remarkably effective campaign.
Advocates have generated bipartisan support by highlighting that the laws, generally known as Pregnant Workers Fairness Acts, simultaneously advance numerous distinct policy objectives. Lack of accommodations for pregnancy is a major barrier to women’s equality that disproportionately disadvantages poor and working-class women of color. Addressing this need is also a pro-family policy that promotes maternal and infant health and reduces liability risk to employers. These various frames help sell the policy to lawmakers across the political spectrum.
The state-level success has also been the result of effective partnerships between national organizations and state and local groups. Additionally, the Essay shows how the state legislative campaign has been reinforced by litigation in federal courts, advocacy to federal agencies and Congress, and worker organizing. Finally, the Essay explores how state-level organizing—even unsuccessful state campaigns—has bolstered support for analogous federal legislation.
Siya Hedge, "I Am Not a Nuisance": Decriminalizing Domestic Violence Across New York's Civil Housing & Criminal Justice Systems, 29 Georgetown J. on Poverty, Law & Policy (2021)
This Article examines how the treatment of domestic violence in New York’s civil and criminal legal systems places survivors and alleged abusers at risk of homelessness—on the one hand, it has been underplayed as a ‘bothersome’ nuisance offense to landlords, while also serving as a basis for state-sanctioned evictions through the issuance of Orders of Protection. Section I incorporates client anecdotes to display how this issue has affected Bronx tenants during the pandemic, explaining theoretical re-framings of domestic violence and providing context on how domestic violence rates in New York City have affected the homelessness epidemic. Section II conducts a deeper dive into nuisance doctrine and the ways that New York tenants affected by domestic violence are entangled in civil judicial and administrative housing disputes. Section III discusses domestic violence prosecutions in criminal courts and the pitfalls that Orders of Protection present in curtailing alleged abusers’ housing rights. Section IV offers policy recommendations to combat the impacts of local nuisance laws and Orders of Protection on survivors and alleged abusers, further acknowledging the importance of transformative justice as an advocacy method to decriminalize domestic violence across the civil and criminal legal spectrum.
Olivia Roat, Free-Exercise Arguments for the Right to Abortion: Reimagining the Relationship Between Religion and Reproductive Rights, 29 U.C.L.A. Women's Law J. (2022)
The popular narrative of the relationship between religion and reproductive rights equates religious belief with opposition to abortion and the exercise of conscience with refraining from the provision of abortion care. The presumption that faith inevitably conflicts with support for reproductive rights is a chapter in a larger story—created and reinforced both legally and culturally —that links religious liberty to conservative views about sex, sexuality, and reproduction.
This Article demonstrates that this typical abortion tale, while well-worn, is one-sided. It traces the history of the claim that restrictions on abortion violate either the Free Exercise Clause or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This claim asserts that laws that explicitly ban or curtail access to abortion burden pregnant people’s ability to make reproductive decisions that are guided by their sincerely held religious beliefs or burden healthcare providers’ ability to provide abortion care as dictated by their religious beliefs. This Article argues that recovering this lost history reveals a dual erasure: erasure of the fact that faith motivates or even requires people to provide or obtain abortions and erasure of the decades-long legal claim, present from the outset of the first sustained effort to challenge the constitutionality of laws criminalizing abortion in the late 1960s, that protecting the right to abortion is actually more consistent with religious-liberty principles than restricting it. There is a rich tradition of the clergy, the women’s movement, and religious organizations fusing free-exercise arguments with arguments about economic justice, dignity, and pregnant people’s ability to make choices about their lives and families.
The historic and normative groundwork laid in this Article illuminates what are now largely invisible concerns with curtailing not only abortion access but also reproductive healthcare access broadly and creates a more holistic, complete account of what it means to protect religious freedom in the reproductive-rights context.
Friday, May 20, 2022
More on the History of Abortion as Different than Presented by Justice Alito in the Draft Dobbs Opinion
Wash Post, Abortion in the Founders" Era
Alito confined his exploration of the past to legal history and English common law. But to assess how the Founders would view abortion rights, it’s necessary to paint a fuller picture of what abortion was actually like in the time of the Founders.
In the 18th-century United States and England, abortion was common enough that there were slang terms for it, like “taking the cold,” “taking the trade” and “bringing down the flowers.”It was less-effective and more dangerous than it is now; women seeking abortions often died from infected wounds or poisons. And it was generally unregulated, except for a few instances in England and one in colonial Maryland mentioned by Alito in the draft opinion.
In the late-18th and early-19th centuries, no states had laws against any form of abortion, though Alito averred that “manuals for justices of the peace printed in the colonies in the 18th century” sometimes "repeated Hale’s and [William] Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”
NPR's Emily Feng speaks with Molly Farrell from The Ohio State University on why Ben Franklin included instructions for at-home abortions in his reference book, The American Instructor.***
So I thought, OK, how do you solve the problem of a missed period? And it says this is a common complaint among unmarried women that they miss their period. And then it starts to prescribe basically all of the best-known herbal abortifacients and contraceptives that were circulating at the time. It's just sort of a greatest hits of what 18th-century herbalists would have given a woman who wanted to end a pregnancy early in her pregnancy. And that's what, by the way, this abortifacient recipe would really be for was really early. It talks about, like, make sure you start to take it a week before you expect to be out of order. So take it before you've even missed that period, and it will be most effective. So it's very explicit, very detailed, also very accurate for the time in terms of what was known at the time for how to end a pregnancy pretty early on.
And then at the end, it just really comes out swinging and lets you know this is definitely related to sex 'cause it says, you know, also women - you know, in order to prevent this complaint at the end - so prevention for next time - don't long for pretty fellows or any other trash whatsoever.
See also Molly Farrell, Ben Franklin Put an Abortion Recipe in his Math Textbook
Nancy Marcus, Yes, Alito, There is a Right to Privacy: Why the Dobbs Leaked Draft Opinion is Doctrinally Unsound, 13 ConLawNOW 101 (2022)
The Essay details how the primary premises underlying the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization regarding abortion rights are infirm as a matter of constitutional doctrine and precedent. It addresses the doctrinal infirmities of the underlying analysis of the draft Dobbs opinion, as well as the resulting dangers posed for the protection of fundamental privacy rights and liberties in contexts even beyond abortion. The draft Dobbs opinion bases its rationale for overruling Roe v. Wade on two deeply flawed premises. First, the opinion claims that abortion had not been a recognized enumerated right prior to Roe, but had instead been criminalized in a number of states. Under the apparent premise that conduct once criminalized cannot subsequently be constitutionally protected as a fundamental right. Second, the opinion is grounded in an interpretation of substantive due process that only recognizes Fourteenth Amendment protections for unenumerated rights when the specific conduct-framed right for which protection is sought be deeply rooted in history
AKRON, Ohio — As the anniversary nears of Sojourner Truth’s celebrated “Ain’t I a Woman” speech in Akron, a dedicated group of women is at work bringing a years-long dream to fruition — a tribute as memorable and powerful as the life and work of the slave-turned-suffragette, built on the site where she made history.
In less than two years, the Sojourner Truth Project Committee plans to build a 10,000-square-foot plaza that will welcome visitors coming into Akron from the north, with the word “TRUTH” clearly visible on entry. Near the plaza’s center will be a sculpture of Sojourner Truth seated on an Impala lily, a petal design radiating outward from her feet, and her right hand extended in welcome.
“Truth is such a big word. It’s so bold and so concrete. What it stands for is unwavering,” said Summit County Metro Parks’ landscape architect Dion Harris, who the committee commissioned to design the plaza.
Truth was a powerful voice for women’s rights, especially women of color. An emancipated New-York slave born Isabella Baumfree, she changed her name in 1843 before crisscrossing the nation to speak against slavery and for women’s rights.
On May 29, 1851 during an Ohio Women’s Rights Convention, the steps of the Old Stone Church on High Street served as Truth’s platform. She was not invited, nor was she asked to speak, but her speech that day is remembered as a voice for all women.
Although the steps are long gone, the power of Truth’s speech remains, rendering it one of the most important women’s rights speeches on record in the U.S.
Harris researched Truth’s life and work to infuse that meaning into the design, he said. The impala lily is the national flower of Ghana, Truth’s ancestry on her father’s side.
Thursday, May 19, 2022
The original constitutional location for the right to abortion was identified as the Ninth Amendment by the trial court in Roe v. Wade building on the lead opinions in Griswold. Worth another look.
Allison Kruschke, Finding a New Home for the Abortion Right Under the Ninth Amendment, 12 ConLawNOW 128 (2020).
This essay advocates locating the foundation of the constitutional right to an abortion in the Ninth Amendment. Using the Ninth Amendment to recognize the right to an abortion, this article argues, is a better path than using the Fourteenth Amendment because it takes the determination of whether an abortion is a protected right outside the moral realm. The analysis under the Fourteenth Amendment of whether a right is “deeply rooted in the tradition” of the United States inevitably stirs a debate about whether the public considers abortion morally acceptable. In recognizing the right to an abortion under the Ninth Amendment, no such analysis is necessary. The text of the Ninth Amendment allows the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize this protected right without an inquiry into historical tradition. Instead, the Court can use natural law principles, as contemplated by the Founders, to recognize that private conduct is worthy of constitutional protection and acknowledge that the Ninth Amendment affords these rights to the people.
Alito’s opinion suggests that liberty is to be feared, not celebrated as a core feature of our constitutional heritage. “Liberty,” he insists, is a “capacious term” that could have hundreds of possible meanings, and he worries that the judiciary will engage in “freewheeling judicial policymaking” in the guise of protecting liberty. He insists that the Supreme Court should be extremely loath “to recognize rights not mentioned in the Constitution” for fear that the Supreme Court will “usurp authority that the Constitution entrusts to the people’s elected representatives.” Because liberty could mean anything, in his view, it means almost nothing.***
According to Alito, only the most overwhelming, centuries-old historical evidence—essentially the sort of historical grounding that rights in the Bill of Rights can point to—could possibly justify the protection of an unenumerated fundamental right. The right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade, he argues, spectacularly fails this test; extending his reasoning, so might the right of people of different races, or of the same sex, to marry—protected in Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges—and the right to use contraceptives protected by Griswold v. Connecticut, as others have pointed out. Alito’s opinion bulldozes a century of case law protecting fundamental rights to bodily integrity and marriage, and the right to decide for one’s own self whether, when, and with whom to form a family.
What fundamental rights have the kind of historical backing Alito seems to demand? What other fundamental rights can claim a historical lineage equivalent to rights in the Bill of Rights? Few, if any, would seem to measure up to the strict standard Alito lays out. That is not a bug, but a feature, of Alito’s approach. To Alito’s way of thinking, many of the rights we cherish as part of our heritage of liberty are not rights at all.
As future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell aptly observed, “Let any one make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it.” The Ninth Amendment, which provides that the “enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” codifies that essential idea.
Alito’s basic move defies the Constitution. He disparages the idea that we have fundamental rights that are basic to bodily integrity, human dignity, and equal citizenship, simply because they are not mentioned in the text. He flouts the rule of construction the Ninth Amendment prescribes.
Republicans are introducing a "Women's Bill of Rights" in order to enshrine into law protections for females based on their biological sex.
Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., is leading lawmakers on the Republican Study Committee (RSC), the largest group of conservative lawmakers on the Hill, in formally introducing the legislation Thursday morning.
"I am proud to introduce the Women’s Bill of Rights to affirm the importance of acknowledging women and their unique and distinguishing characteristics and contributions to our nation. As the Left continues to erase women, we must fight for women and their place in our society. Whether it’s keeping the word "mother" in written law, or ensuring women’s domestic violence shelters do not have to accept biological men, we must stand up for women," Lesko told Fox News Digital.
The bill states that the Women's Bill of Rights is necessary to establish in order to "reaffirm legal protections afforded to women under Federal law" due to that face that males and females have unique biological differences, which increases as they age.
The lawmakers' bill says that due to biological differences, only females are able to "get pregnant, give birth, breastfeed children." In addition, males are larger and possess greater strength than females due to biology. The text also states that females are subjected to more specific forms of violence, including sexual violence....
"This common-sense document will help codify our common understanding and the reality we all know of the words ‘female,’ ‘woman,’ and ‘sex’, and I am proud to support it," Rep. Miller added.
The legislation clarifies, "for purposes of Federal law, a person’s ‘sex’ means his or her biological sex (either male or female) at birth" and the term "mother" means "parents of female sex and ‘father’ is defined as parent of the male sex." It continues: "there are important reasons to distinguish between the sexes with respect to athletics, prisons, domestic violence shelters, restrooms, and other areas, particularly where biology, safety, and privacy are implicated."
Monday, May 16, 2022
Scary Mommy tells a powerful story of how a grieving mother and scientist has identified the cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The findings were published in the June 2022 publication of The Lancet. The publication provides the following contextual summary of the research:
Evidence before this study
Despite the effectiveness of public health campaigns in reducing the incidence of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), SIDS remains the major cause of infant death in western countries. The “triple risk model” hypothesises that SIDS deaths result from coincident occurrence of a vulnerable infant, a critical developmental period, and an exogenous stressor. Despite intensive research, identification of any specific vulnerability prior to the sudden death has remained elusive. And, while autonomic dysfunction has long been considered a candidate for this vulnerability, studies have been hampered by reliance on post-mortem samples.
Added value of this study
We found that Butyrylcholinesterase Activity, measured in dried blood spots taken 2-3 days after birth, was significantly lower in babies who subsequently died of SIDS compared to living controls and other Non-SIDS infant deaths. This study identifies a biochemical marker that differentiates SIDS infants from control cases and those dying from other causes, prior to their death. We postulate that this decreased activity of Butyrylcholineserase represents an autonomic cholinergic dysfunction and therefore an inherent vulnerability of the SIDS infants.
Implications of all the available evidence
This finding represents the possibility for the identification of infants at risk for SIDS infants prior to death and opens new avenues for future research into specific
These findings have implications for the patchwork of state laws governing SIDS throughout the country.
Raquel E. Aldana, Patrick Marius Koga, Thomas O’Donnell, Alea Skwara, and Caroline Perris have posted a forthcoming article, Trauma as Inclusion, on SSRN. The article is forthcoming in Summer 2022 in the Tennessee Law Review. It "brings together a historian and law, public health, psychiatry, psychology, and neuroscience faculty and researchers to document how trauma is understood across disciplines and how it has developed in U.S. immigration law largely to exclude but increasingly to include migrants whose lives have been uprooted or otherwise impacted by borders." It describes, for example, how refugee and asylum law "largely fail to protect individuals and groups facing persecution by private actors, such as women and LGBTQIA+ individuals, even when private violence has become indistinguishable from state sponsored persecution." It then explores how the Violence Against Women Act has more potential for a model of "trauma as inclusion":
Unfortunately, several obstacles, including evidentiary barriers impede the full potential of the VAWA self-petition process. Proving trauma for domestic violence victims is difficult, even in cases involving physical abuse, given the barriers to reporting. Moreover, when the alleged hardship is based on “extreme cruelty,” an immigrant’s narrative alone can be deemed insufficient to establish eligibility. For immigrants who can afford it, sometimes psychological evaluations can help document psychological trauma that is not otherwise documentable. However, even these types of evidence may not help overcome the Western clinical conceptualizations of trauma that undermine the lived experiences of more resilient women, especially when one considers the different ways that victims respond to trauma. Worse yet, these types of psychological evaluations can be used against immigrants to deny relief, such as when documented depression and suicidal thoughts trigger mental health grounds of inadmissibility.
The infant formula crisis continues in the United States as covered by Reuters and numerous media outlets. Here's a look at the cities in which supplies are the most depleted from Bloomberg. Consumer safety groups and pediatricians are warning consumers not to try to make products at home. Attention is focused on what the government can do to offer support. Reuters previews:
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) will announce new steps in the coming days regarding importing certain infant formula products from abroad, the White House said, and Biden has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to probe reports of predatory conduct such as price gouging.
The House will also hold a hearing on the crisis on May 25.
The Atlantic Monthly does a deep dive on what is behind the shortage and the role of law and policy.
FDA regulation of formula is so stringent that most of the stuff that comes out of Europe is illegal to buy here due to technicalities like labeling requirements. Nevertheless, one study found that many European formulas meet the FDA nutritional guidelines—and, in some ways, might even be better than American formula, because the European Union bans certain sugars, such as corn syrup, and requires formulas to have a higher share of lactose. * * *
U.S. policy also restricts the importation of formula that does meet FDA requirements. At high volumes, the tax on formula imports can exceed 17 percent. And under President Donald Trump, the U.S. entered into a new North American trade agreement that actively discourages formula imports from our largest trading partner, Canada.
America’s formula policy warps the industry in one more way. The Department of Agriculture has a special group called WIC—short for Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children—that provides a variety of services to pregnant and breastfeeding women and their young children. It is also the largest purchaser of infant formula in the United States, awarding contracts to a small number of approved formula companies. As a result, the U.S. baby formula industry is minuscule, by design. A 2011 analysis by USDA reported that three companies accounted for practically all U.S. formula sales: Abbott, Mead Johnson, and Gerber.