The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits states from depriving any person \"equal protection of the laws,\" and the Constitution\'s Fifth Amendment has been interpreted as applying this prohibition to the federal government. This article considers whether constitutional equal protection should apply to some nonhuman animals in light of corporations having gained such protection and concludes that expanding equal protection personhood to nonhuman animals is improbable in the present legal landscape.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Insurance coverage for prenatal care, labor and delivery care, and postpartum care for undocumented immigrants consists of a patchwork of state and federal policies, which varies widely by state. According to federal law, states must provide coverage for labor and delivery through Emergency Medicaid. Various states have additional prenatal and postpartum coverage for undocumented immigrants through policy mechanisms such as the Children\'s Health Insurance Program\'s \"unborn child\" option, expansion of Medicaid, and independent state-level mechanisms. Using a search of state Medicaid and federal government websites, we found that 27 states and the District of Columbia provide additional coverage for prenatal care, postpartum care, or both, while 23 states do not. Twelve states include any postpartum coverage; 7 provide coverage for 12 months postpartum. Although information regarding coverage is available publicly online, there exist many barriers to access, such as lack of transparency, lack of availability of information in multiple languages, and incorrect information. More inclusive and easily accessible policies are needed as the first step toward improving maternal health among undocumented immigrants, a population trapped in a complicated web of immigration policy and a maternal health crisis. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(10):1051-1060. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307750).

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The interdependent and intersecting nature of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) require collaboration across government sectors, and it is likely that departments with few past interactions will find themselves engaged in joint missions on SDG projects. Intersectoral action (IA) is becoming a common framework for different sectors to work together. Understanding the factors in the environment external to policy teams enacting IA is crucial for making progress on the SDGs.
METHODS: Interviews [n=17] with senior public servants leading SDG work in nine departments in the federal government of Canada were conducted to elicit information about issues affecting how departments engage in IA for the SDGs. Transcripts were coded based on a set of factors identified in a background review of 20 documents related to Canada\'s progress on SDGs. Iterative group thematic analysis by the authors illuminated a set of domestic and global contextual factors affecting IA processes for the SDGs.
RESULTS: The mechanisms for successful IA were identified as facilitative governance, leadership by a central coordinating office, supportive staff, flexible and clear reporting structures, adequate resources, and targeted skills development focused on collaboration and cross-sector learning. Factors that affect IA positively include alignment of the SDG agenda with domestic and global political priorities, and the co-occurrence of social issues such as Indigenous rights and gender equity that raise awareness of and support for related SDGs. Factors that affect IA negatively include competing conceptual frameworks for approaching shared priorities, lack of capacity for \"big picture\" thinking among bureaucratic staff, and global disruptions that shift national priorities away from the SDGs.
CONCLUSIONS: IA is becoming a normal way of working on problems that cross otherwise separate government accountabilities. The success of these collaborations can be impacted by contextual factors beyond any one department\'s control.

Integrated policy changes must be cross-sectoral, appropriate, strategic, and evidence-based.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic precipitated an urgent need for clinical trials to discover safe and efficacious treatments. We examined how COVID-19 experiences, clinical trial awareness, and trust in the vaccine safety process were associated with willingness to participate in COVID-19 clinical trials. The objective was to investigate the relationship between trust in federal oversight of vaccine safety and willingness to participate in clinical trials for COVID-19 treatment across four distinct time points over an 18-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: We used four waves of data collected from September 2021 to March 2023 among 582 Philadelphia residents (with a missing data rate of 0.9%). Generalized estimating equations estimated the association between willingness to participate in COVID-19 clinical trials and participants\' trust in the federal government\'s oversight of COVID-19 vaccine safety, COVID-19-related variables (COVID-19 related health challenges, history of COVID-19 infection), awareness of clinical trials and how to enroll in them, and sociodemographic characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, parental status, education, and insurance).
RESULTS: On average, willingness to participate in a COVID-19 clinical trial was positively associated with greater trust in the federal government\'s oversight of vaccine safety [β = 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.15-0.53], having COVID-19 (β = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.08-0.73), awareness of clinical trials (β = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.04-0.73), and knowledge of how to enroll (β = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.44-1.23). Among sociodemographic characteristics, race/ethnicity (p = 0.001) and gender (p = 0.018) were identified as predictors for COVID-19 trial willingness.
CONCLUSIONS: Willingness to participate in clinical trials may be bolstered by strengthening the public\'s trust in the federal government\'s role within vaccine safety oversight, increasing the perceived relevance of clinical trials to individuals\' health and well-being, and offering tailored information to educate diverse communities about ongoing trials and how to enroll in them.

Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States since 1898, has recently experienced an increasing frequency and intensity of natural disasters and public health emergencies. In 2022, Hurricane Fiona became the latest storm to attract media attention and cast a light on Puerto Rico\'s deteriorating conditions, including infrastructural failings, health care provider shortages, and high levels of chronic illness. Although recent events have been uniquely devastating, decades of inequitable US federal policy practices have fueled the persistence of health inequities in the territory. Here we demonstrate how existing health and health care inequities in Puerto Rico have been exacerbated by compounding disasters but are rooted in the differential treatment of the territory under US federal policies. Specifically, we focus on the unequal US Federal Emergency Management Agency response to disasters in the territory, the lack of parity in federal Medicaid funding for Puerto Rico, and Puerto Rico\'s limited political power as a territory of the United States. We also provide empirically supported policy recommendations aimed at reducing health and health care inequities in the often-forgotten US territory of Puerto Rico. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S6):S478-S484. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307585) [Formula: see text].

暂无摘要。