Showing papers by "George J. Annas published in 2011"
TL;DR: The continuing uncertainty over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, illustrated by conflicting trial court rulings and scholarly commentaries, raises the question of why this constitutional question is so hard to answer.
Abstract: The continuing uncertainty over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, illustrated by conflicting trial court rulings and scholarly commentaries, raises the question of why this constitutional question is so hard to answer. There are at least four reasons.
17 citations
TL;DR: The reproductive medicine industry is regulated by few national or international laws, and Canada had passed one of the only national laws regulating reproductive medicine, but the Canadian Supreme Court recently ruled that the regulations violated the constitution.
Abstract: The reproductive medicine industry is regulated by few national or international laws. Canada had passed one of the only national laws regulating reproductive medicine, but the Canadian Supreme Court recently ruled that the regulations violated the constitution.
15 citations
TL;DR: The budget resolution of the U.S. House of Representatives — now up for debate in the Senate — would cut funding for programs in family planning, nutritional assistance, and prenatal care, threatening the health of low-income women and children.
Abstract: Provisions of the budget resolution of the U.S. House of Representatives — now up for debate in the Senate — would cut funding for programs in family planning, nutritional assistance, and prenatal care, threatening the health of low-income women and children.
7 citations
Journal Article•
6 citations
TL;DR: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and researchers using human embryonic stem cells (ESCs) have been operating under some uncertainty since the August 2010 ruling by federal districtcourt judge Royce Lamberth that the Dickey–Wicker Amendment prohibits the NIH from funding human ESC research.
Abstract: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and researchers using human embryonic stem cells (ESCs) have been operating under some uncertainty since the August 2010 ruling by federal districtcourt judge Royce Lamberth that the Dickey–Wicker Amendment (which Congress has attached to all appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS] since 1996) prohibits the NIH from funding human ESC research.1 Two scientists had challenged the NIH's 2009 guidelines that permitted the agency to fund research using human ESCs that had been derived without the use of federal funds. Judge Lamberth found the funding prohibition in Dickey–Wicker unambiguous and . . .
6 citations
TL;DR: The Supreme Court has ruled in Pliva v. Mensing that the right of patients to sue makers of brand-name drugs for inadequate labeling does not apply to generic drugs, whose labels must be identical to those of the brand- name versions.
Abstract: The Supreme Court has ruled in Pliva v. Mensing that the right of patients to sue makers of brand-name drugs for inadequate labeling does not apply to generic drugs, whose labels, under federal law, must be identical to those of the brand-name versions.
4 citations
01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: The continuing uncertainty over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, illustrated by conflicting trial court rulings and scholarly commentaries, raises the question of why this constitutional question is so hard to answer.
Abstract: The continuing uncertainty over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, illustrated by conflicting trial court rulings and scholarly commentaries, raises the question of why this constitutional question is so hard to answer. There are at least four reasons.
1 citations