United States Supreme Court Decision Research Articles

High variability in self-pay pricing for vasectomy and vasectomy reversal in the United States.

In the United States (US) men who undergo vasectomy and/or vasectomy reversal (vasovasotomy) are likely to pay out-of-pocket for these procedures. We characterized the publicly disclosed pricing of both procedures with a focus on variability in self-pay prices. We queried all US hospitals for publicly disclosed prices of vasectomy and vasovasotomy. We assessed interhospital variability in self-pay pricing and compared hospitals charging high (≥75th percentile) and low (≤25th percentile) self-pay prices for either procedure. We also examined trends in pricing after the 2022 US Supreme Court decision that allowed individual states to ban abortion. Of 6692 hospitals, 1375 (20.5%) and 281 (4.2%) disclosed self-pay prices for vasectomy and vasovasotomy, respectively. There was a 17-fold difference between the 10th and 90th percentile self-pay prices for vasectomy ($421-$7147) and a 39-fold difference for vasovasotomy ($446-$17,249). Compared with hospitals charging low (≤25th percentile) self-pay prices for vasectomy or vasovasotomy, hospitals charging high (≥75th percentile) prices were larger (median 150 vs. 59 beds, p < 0.001) and more likely to be for-profit (31.2% vs. 7.8%, p < 0.001), academic-affiliated (52.7% vs. 23.1%, p < 0.001), and located in an urban zip code (70.1% vs. 41.3%, p < 0.001). From October 2022 to April 2023, the median self-pay price of vasectomy increased by 10% (from $1667 to $1832) while the median self-pay price of vasovasotomy decreased by 16% (from $3309 to $2786). We found large variability in self-pay pricing for vasectomy and vasectomy reversal, which may serve as a barrier to the accessibility of male reproductive care.

Social Media News as a Predictor of Sports Gambling Salience, Attitudes, and Behaviors in the United States

Gambling has become a more prominent aspect of American sports culture after the 2018 United States Supreme Court decision offered in Murphy v National Collegiate Athletic Association that rendered the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) unconstitutional. A secondary analysis of 2022 PEW American Trends Panel (ATP) data ( N = 3900) explores social media news exposure and satisfaction as predictors of the salience of, attitudes toward, and behavioral engagement with sports gambling. Social media news exposure and satisfaction do not predict individual-level salience of the expanded legalization of sports betting. However, social media news exposure and an individual’s satisfaction with news content on X, Facebook, and YouTube positively predict feelings that sports betting is good for society and sports culture. Social media news exposure positively predicts sports gambling behaviors. A broader media effects research agenda pertaining to sports gambling is outlined based on these findings.

Trends in Female Sterilization Since Dobbs v. Jackson at an Academic Institution [ID 2683460

INTRODUCTION: The Dobbs v. Jackson United States Supreme Court decision, issued June 24, 2022, fundamentally altered options for addressing unintended pregnancy. This curtailing of access to abortion care may be an inflection point in how individuals capable of becoming pregnant select contraceptive options. We hypothesize that in the immediate wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, those undergoing surgical sterilization will be younger in age and more likely to be nulliparous. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review study. IRB approval was obtained for the study. Using CPT codes, we utilized Epic to identify all patients undergoing surgical sterilizations at an academic, tertiary care hospital during the 12 months preceding the Dobbs decision (June 24, 2021 to June 24, 2022) and the 12 months immediately after the Dobbs decision (June 25, 2022 to June 25, 2023). Charts were reviewed for age, insurance status, highest level of education, gravidity, parity, and type of sterilization procedure, as well as time between request for and completion of surgical sterilization. RESULTS: In the 12 months after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, individuals undergoing female surgical sterilization via salpingectomy or tubal occlusion had a lower mean age and lower mean parity compared to those undergoing sterilization in the 12 months preceding Dobbs. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that, since the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, individuals seeking female surgical sterilization are younger and less likely to be multiparous. This implies that as access to abortion care in the United States becomes more tenuous, those who seek female surgical sterilization procedures as contraception are younger and lower parity individuals.

Clinical and Advocacy Implications of the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization Ruling on Trafficked Persons.

The United States Supreme Court decision on the case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization abolished federal protections of abortion, leaving abortion legislation at the discretion of individual states. Trafficked persons are a population especially vulnerable to the impacts of this ruling. Because there is no existing literature describing the effects of restrictive abortion legislation on this group, we described some of the potential consequences of restrictive abortion laws for sex and labor trafficked persons, based on real case examples. We describe steps that should be taken to sufficiently protect and support pregnant trafficked women in relation to the Dobbs law.

Abortion as a sociological case

AbstractFor over a century, abortion has been politically and socially contested, affecting people's lives through personal experience and/or public discourse. In the United States (US), abortion is sometimes exceptional—treated differently from other procedures, professions, and political issues—and sometimes an exemplar—an accessible example of a commonly occurring social, political, or personal phenomenon. It is, in other words, an excellent sociological case study. Yet the sociological literature on abortion is relatively thin. In this essay, we review research on abortion and opportunities for future sociological work in eight areas: gender; race; the body and embodiment; political economy; organizations, occupations, and work; medical sociology; law and society; and social movements. Sociologists have much to contribute to characterizing and understanding abortion, particularly following the 2022 US Supreme Court decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion. The discipline also has much to learn from studying abortion as a case. With its multifaceted social and political status and intersections with key areas of sociological interest, abortion offers a generative case for advancing sociological concepts, subfields, and constructs. While not exhaustive, our review aims to spark interest and inquiry, showcasing how a topic that spurs strong opinions can also catalyze sociological insights.

The Slump: Infamous United States Supreme Court Decisions From the Gilded Age And Explanations About What Happened

The Slump: Infamous United States Supreme Court Decisions From the Gilded Age And Explanations About What Happened

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Utilizing telemedicine to address disparities in maternal-fetal medicine: a call to policy action

The combination of deserts in maternal-fetal medicine coverage across the United States and the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the implementation of telemedicine programs for maternal-fetal medicine care delivery. While telemedicine-based care has the potential to facilitate timely access to maternal-fetal medicine services, which can improve maternal and neonatal outcomes, telemedicine is a relatively novel healthcare modality that needs to be implemented strategically. As with any medical service, telemedicine care requires rigorous evaluation to assess outcomes and ensure quality. Important health policy considerations including access to services and insurance coverage have significant implications for equity in the implementation of telemedicine, particularly for reproductive health care following the 2022 United States Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. Investing resources and advocating for a rigorous, widely accessible telemedicine infrastructure at this critical moment will establish an important foundation for more equitable pregnancy care. Key advocacy priorities for maternal-fetal medicine telemedicine include (1) expanding insurance coverage of telemedicine across payers and regardless of geographic location, (2) advocating for inter-state licensure parity, (3) increasing access to affordable internet and digital literacy training, and (4) ensuring access to reproductive health care, including abortion care, delivered via telemedicine.

Protecting Reproductive Rights Post-Roe: Can Companies Keep Your Data Safe?

AbstractThe United States Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization brought to the forefront the intersections between technology and reproductive rights. As the country grappled with the impact of Dobbs on reproductive rights, digital and human rights experts warned that the vast amounts of data collected by companies could now be used to target and punish people seeking or facilitating access to abortions. This is the most recent manifestation of the negative impact technology can have on women, girls and persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and represents a global challenge for companies that collect, store, share and process user data. To fulfill their responsibility to respect human rights, companies should take steps to prevent the risks associated with collecting, storing, sharing and processing user data, and adapt these steps to respond to emerging risks, such as those now posed by the Dobbs decision.

Post-Roe emergency medicine: Policy, clinical, training, and individual implications for emergency clinicians.

In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, removing almost 50 years of precedent and enabling the imposition of a wide range of state-level restrictions on abortion access. Historical data from the United States and internationally demonstrate that the removal of safe abortion options will increase complications and the health risks to pregnant patients. Because the emergency department is a critical access point for reproductive health care, emergency clinicians must be prepared for the policy, clinical, educational, and legal implications of this change. The goal of this paper, therefore, is to describe the impact of the reversal of Roe v. Wade on health equity and reproductive justice, the provision of emergency care education and training, and the specific legal and reproductive consequences for emergency clinicians. Finally, we conclude with specific recommended policy and advocacy responses for emergency medicine clinicians.

Organizational abortion support benefits in the post-Roe world: employee and employer perspectives

PurposeThe authors discuss the implications of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson and its impact on employees and employers. Although several employers issued public statements regarding the provision of abortion-related benefits, the authors highlight some of the obstacles to their implementation.Design/methodology/approachWith a focus on employee wellbeing, the authors discuss the obstacles in implementing abortion care benefits.FindingsWhile it is encouraging to see many organizations make public statements in support of abortion rights, the authors temper their enthusiam with questions about practicality.Research limitations/implicationsBased on the research on hidden stigmas and the job demands-resources model, the authors argue that employees who need to use abortion-related benefits may be unlikely to seek them.Practical implicationsThe authors highlight some unanswered questions relating to the requesting and granting of abortion healthcare benefits.Social implicationsThe Dobbs decision takes away rights. While the authors applaud organizations’ efforts to restore them, facilitating access to an abortion in other states is quite complicated.Originality/valueAlthough abortions are very common, very little organizational research has addressed the topic. In light of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, the paper raises some timely questions about employer-sponsored abortion healthcare.

Conception of Sanctions for Same-Sex Marriage Couples in the Perspective of Balinese Customary Law (Comparison of Laws in the United States)

In Balinese customary law, same-sex sexual intercourse is known as “salah krama”, or sexual intercourse with wrong partners and it is strictly prohibited in Hindu law. The reason is the situation will make the offenders become cuntaka, leteh or impure. The purpose of this study is to analyse and reveal the paradigm of same-sex marriage from the perspective of international law and customary sanctions against same-sex marriage couples in Bali. The type of research used in this study is normative legal research. Based on analysis, the results of this study revealed that the United States government’s policy paradigm regarding same-sex marriage can be seen from the United States Supreme Court Decision which issued a policy that completely changed the existence of the LGBT community in the United States. Furthermore, the concept of customary sanctions against same-sex marriage couples in Bali is made in the form of giving customary sanctions to those practicing LGBT that must be executed strictly. The customary sanctions that can be given take the form of arta danda, sangaskara danda, and jiwa danda.

HOW THE SUPREME COURT DISTORTED TEXT, IGNORED HISTORY, AND GASLIGHTED THE BOLD PROMISE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 A Comcast Case Study

HOW THE SUPREME COURT DISTORTED TEXT, IGNORED HISTORY, AND GASLIGHTED THE BOLD PROMISE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 A <i>Comcast</i> Case Study

Dark Money in Congressional House Elections

The deregulation in campaign finance, stemming from the 2010 United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, has led to nonprofit organizations with anonymous donors spending on advertisements targeting candidates. I study the effects of this “dark money” 501(c)(4) nonprofit spending on election outcomes in US Congressional House elections. Since 501(c)(4)s are not legally required to disclose spending to the Federal Election Commission, I use advertising data to measure their behavior. I estimate a model of the voter’s candidate choice, which is influenced by the spending of different groups. I find that 501(c)(4)s do not have significant effects on candidate vote share when accounting for the spending of candidates, parties, PACs, and Super PACs.

Race, Equality, Citizenship, and Belonging: Reading James Baldwin andWong Kim Ark

The following essays are part of a collaboration between theJournal of Law and ReligionandPolitical Theology.Editors from both journals selected the two texts interrogated and interpreted here—James Baldwin’s essay “Equal in Paris” and the United States Supreme Court decision in the caseUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898). The purpose of the collaboration was twofold. The first purpose was to see what new interpretations arise when scholars working primarily in law read the essay by Baldwin, who has been a touchstone in much contemporary Black theology, and when scholars working in religious studies read the legal decision inWong Kim Ark, a case in which the Supreme Court extended citizenship to the child of Chinese immigrants who conceived and bore him on American soil. The second purpose was to divide publication between the journals, with each journal publishing three of the six essays, with a view to building bridges between readers of each journal over a topic at the intersection of both law and political theology.

Attitudes Towards LGBT Individuals After bostock v. Clayton County: Evidence From a Quasi Experiment

Do United States Supreme Court decisions on LGBT rights shape attitudes towards LGBT individuals among the mass public? In this paper, I conduct an empirical test of the effect of quasi-random exposure to the announcement of Bostock v. Clayton County—a landmark case which held that an employer who fires their employee because of their sexual orientation or gender identity violates Section VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act—on favorability towards LGBT individuals. Relying on data from Phase 2 of the Democracy Fund/UCLA Nationscape survey, I find that quasi-random exposure to the announcement of Bostock engendered increases in favorability towards LGBT individuals among the wider American public. Subgroup analyses also indicate that the largest increases in favorability were among Democratic partisans and the religiously unaffiliated, while minimal changes in favorability were detected among those who are among the most likely to oppose LGBT rights, including Republicans and Evangelical Protestants. The findings speak to the validity of the legitimacy model and highlight the limitations of the backlash model in the post-Obergefell era of public opinion towards LGBT rights.

Incorrigibility and the Juvenile Homicide Offender: An Ecologically Valid Integrative Review

The United States Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama highlighted the importance of an individual’s “incorrigibility” and the prospect of “irreparable corruption” when weighing possible life sentencing for juveniles convicted of homicide. In this review, we study research in multiple content areas spanning homicide recidivism, life-course-persistent or career criminality, and psychopathology and incorrigibility that bears relevance to the risk assessment of juvenile homicide offenders. A well-developed corpus of research and scholarship in these domains documents the severe, lifelong behavioral impairments of the most violent delinquents. In contrast to studies of non-offender student samples and behaviors that bear no ecological validity to juvenile homicide, the research covered herein emanates from epidemiological surveys, birth cohort studies, large-scale prospective longitudinal studies, and correctional studies including homicide offenders and appropriate control groups of other serious delinquents. A rich research foundation in the social, behavioral, and forensic science informs relevant, reliable, and valid forensic assessments of future criminal deviance and incorrigibility in juvenile homicide offenders.

Economic Consequences of Expanding Sales Tax Nexus: Evidence from Stock Price Reactions to the Wayfair Decision

We analyze stock price reactions to the announcement of the United States Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., Overstock.com, Inc., and Newegg, Inc. (hereafter Wayfair), which overturned over 25 years of judicial doctrine related to sales tax nexus. Wayfair's precedent provides a broadening of sales tax nexus and a significant increase in affected firms' compliance costs. Stock returns surrounding the Wayfair decision were, on average, negative, suggesting that investors were concerned about an increase in compliance costs and a decrease in market share. Cross-sectional analyses suggest that the negative reaction manifested primarily among firms operating in industries most affected by the decision and firms with fewer resources. Our results reveal an immediate consequence of the prospect of expanding sales tax nexus is a downward revision in firm valuations.

A corpus-aided study of stance adverbs in judicial opinions and the implications for English for Legal Purposes instruction

This article reports a corpus-aided analysis of stance adverbs within published judicial opinions from the 12 geographically-apportioned districts of the United States (US) Federal Courts of Appeals. The study first analyzes stance adverbs previously investigated in US Supreme Court decisions in order to more comprehensively explore these interactional features across multiple levels of the judicial system. Following this initial analysis, the study then examines variation in the use of stance adverbs between majority and dissenting opinions in Courts of Appeals opinions to identify salient similarities and differences in frequency and function in the two opinion types. The initial analysis reveals divergence in stance adverb use between the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court and between legal writing and other registers, indicating the prevalence and importance of stance adverbs within legal writing. Additionally, the study notes variation in stance adverbs between majority and dissenting opinions. This article details the variation of stance adverbs across these aforementioned contexts, discusses how the variation noted in the corpus analysis at times conflicts with the advice of legal writing style guides, and offers pedagogical implications of these findings for English for Legal Purposes instruction.

Children with Disabilities and Equity in Education: Connecting Standards and Practice to Law and Ethics

Some of the most controversial education policy concerns and methods of practice have been over Special Education. Students between the ages three to twenty-one with disabilities compromise 13% of student enrollment between prekindergarten and twelfth grade (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013) (Appendix A, Table 1,2,3). From the late eighteenth century to current times, the legal system and court case outcomes have played a major role in the development of public education in America. The Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education not only ruled racial segregation as unconstitutional, but became a landmark case that opened the doors for court involvement in refining educational policy concerning Special Education. Standards of practice, which have evolved through the years, began to take form to support educational leaders in how they approached adhering to laws and policy concerning the education of students identified as special needs learners. Chief Justice Earl Warren who spoke for the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), stated: In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms (Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 1954).This case dispelled the notion that education could be offered to any group under the premise of separate but equal that had earlier been established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of “separate but equal” (Maidment, 1973).

An Essay on Public Health and Liberty - The Impact of the 1905 United States Supreme Court Decision of Jacobson: Compulsory Vaccination under State Police Power vs. the Individual Right to Refuse a Vaccination in this Modern-Day Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrust vaccines in the forefront. Undoubtedly, vaccines are far from a new phenomenon. Over two centuries ago, Edward Jenner was credited with inventing a vaccine to prevent smallpox. Other notable vaccines include Pertussis (1914), Diphtheria (1926), Tetanus (1938) combined at DTP in 1948. The licensing of the polio vaccine in 1955 was cause for celebration. Fast forward to early 2020, the dire necessity for a vaccine to combat COVID-19 became apparent as an unprecedented pandemic infiltrated the United States. To comprehend the issue of the right to refuse a vaccination for COVID-19, the past is examined by the United States Supreme Court decision of Jacobson. This decision impacted the right of an individual to refuse a vaccine versus compulsory vaccination under state police power to protect the public.