Environmental Law: A Vital Mechanism to Address the Climate Crisis

By: Eliana Aemro Selassie

Edited by: Regan Cornelius and Eleanor Bergstein

Climate change has been a growing issue of concern among governments and citizens alike in the last few years. As the climate crisis worsens, environmental law has become increasingly important to implement effective environmental legislation and address the crisis. Environmental law focuses specifically on managing natural resources, preventing the degradation of the environment, and regulating pollution and emissions through policies and legislation focused on managing air and water quality, protecting endangered species, limiting pollution, and addressing the impacts of environmental disasters, at both the national and international levels. [1] The implementation of environmental law is increasingly important to mitigate the deterioration of the environment past irreversible levels, but this poses several challenges given the number of stakeholders involved and the complexities associated with national and international climate policy.

Environmental law has evolved significantly over the last 50 years in the United States. The rise of major environmental disasters and declining air, land, and water resources across the nation in the 1960s increased public concern about environmental issues. The evolution of environmental law was largely funneled by the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), established in 1970 under the Nixon administration. [2] Today, the EPA has the power to set air and water quality standards, conduct research on environmental hazards, and ensure environmental legislation is implemented to maintain environmental resources and stewardship. [3] 

However, the EPA’s powers have been recently thwarted through the 2022 Supreme Court case West Virginia vs EPA, which restricts the EPA’s ability to limit carbon emissions, arguing that it is the jurisdiction of Congress, rather than the EPA, to do so. The ruling stated that the EPA would be overreaching if it were to create emission caps on generation shifting, the process of shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. [4] The decision was based on the recent “major questions doctrine” framework, which states that it is the responsibility of government agencies like the EPA to enact “the will of Congress” and elected officials, rather than to decide on those matters themselves. [5] As a result of the doctrine, the Supreme Court argued determining emission caps specifically for fossil fuel corporations would be an infringement of the EPA’s abilities as an agency.

However, limiting the EPA’s ability to enact carbon emission caps in the current state of the climate crisis poses major threats to the capacity of the United States to meet its carbon emissions targets. In Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, she emphasized that restricting the EPA’s power is particularly harmful, stating that “If the current rate of emissions continues, children born this year could live to see parts of the Eastern seaboard swallowed by the ocean.” [4] Kagan’s dissent highlights how restricting the jurisdiction of agencies like the EPA that are responsible for creating environmental policies poses risks to the likelihood that these policies will be enacted to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis. 

Similarly, at the international level, environmental law has become particularly precarious and difficult to enact. International environmental law and policy focuses on geopolitical agreements to mitigate climate change, protect wildlife, and manage ozone depletion. [6] In the past, environmental law was primarily focused on settling disputes over shared environmental resources like bodies of water. Today, it is predominantly focused on sustainable development, ensuring that resources are effectively managed today for future use. [7] Despite improvements to global climate policy, it remains mostly ineffective, since it requires the coordination and consideration of hundreds of nations, their leaders, the concerns of the public, and the interests of energy and fuel corporations. Coordinating this many stakeholders and considering their interests, particularly when diverging views arise, has proven to be challenging.

One of the few examples of effective international climate legislation is the Montreal Protocol, a multilateral agreement that placed international restrictions on the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, helping to resolve the hole in the ozone layer. Implemented in 1987, the protocol is one of the very few agreements to “achieve universal ratification.” [8] Today, the ozone layer is on track to fully recover as a result of the Montreal Protocol. [9]  This is a rare example of how effective environmental legislation can be at the global level, especially when a universal consensus is reached. Going forward, environmental legislation would benefit from taking a similar approach, considering a major environmental issue and proposing solutions that target and consider stakeholders of all levels. 

However, this is unlikely given the growing inefficacy of climate agreements. The 28th annual Conference of Parties Climate Summit, COP 28, was held in Dubai from November 30 to December 12, 2023, and raised concerns among environmentalists about the growing inefficacy of world leaders in addressing the issue of climate change. [10] The goals of the conference are to speed up the rate of the energy transition, increase the inclusivity of environmental policy, and take action concerning climate finance. [11] However, from ambiguous wording on climate goals to a lack of representation of the world’s largest emitters, the conference resulted in inefficient outcomes. President Biden and President Xi Jinping both chose not to attend the climate summit, sparking concerns that the United States and China will continue to delay agreeing to environmental legislation. Criticism of the two countries is especially high given that they are the world’s largest emitters, yet the burden of climate change typically falls onto poorer nations who are among the smallest emitters. [12] This further illustrates that environmental policy requires a complex framework, one that will hold large emitters responsible while also considering the implications of climate change on a global scale. 

The future of the climate crisis remains uncertain, given the continued failures of governments and international organizations to address the crisis. Environmental law is particularly complex and requires a multifaceted approach, one that considers how it will impact people on a myriad of levels. Going forward, the government of the United States needs to address its failure to reduce emissions and expand the authority of agencies like the EPA to hold fossil fuel corporations accountable for their large emissions. At the global level, world leaders must consider that the impacts of large carbon emissions will continue to be detrimental to the environment, to the point where climate change and its impacts become irreversible.

Notes:

1. “What is Environmental Law - and Why Does it Matter | American Public University.” American Public University, https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/security-and-global-studies/resources/what-is-environmental-law/. Accessed 8 December 2023.

2. “The Origins of EPA | US EPA.” Environmental Protection Agency, 5 June 2023, https://www.epa.gov/history/origins-epa. Accessed 8 December 2023.

3. “Our Mission and What We Do | US EPA.” Environmental Protection Agency, 23 May 2023, https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do. Accessed 8 December 2023.

4. "West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1530. Accessed 8 Dec. 2023.

5. Clifford, Catherine. “The Supreme Court limited the power of the EPA — so what happens now?” CNBC, 1 July 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/01/the-supreme-court-limited-the-power-of-the-epa-so-what-happens-now.html. Accessed 8 December 2023.

6. Hunter, David. “GW Law Library: Library Guides: International Environmental Law: Getting Started.” Library, 21 November 2023, https://law.gwu.libguides.com/IEL. Accessed 8 December 2023.

7. Hunter, David. “International Environmental Law.” American Bar Association, 5 January 2021, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-19/insights-vol--19---issue-1/international-environmental-law/. Accessed 8 December 2023.

8. “About Montreal Protocol.” UNEP, https://www.unep.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol. Accessed 8 December 2023.

9. “Ozone layer recovery is on track, helping avoid global warming by 0.5°C.” UNEP, 9 January 2023, https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc. Accessed 8 December 2023.

10. Horton, Helena, and Matthew Taylor. “Cop28: president says summit 'has already made history' as negotiations enter final days – as it happened.” The Guardian, 8 December 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2023/dec/08/cop-28-climate-environment-fossil-fuel-latest-news-updates-live. Accessed 8 December 2023.

11. “Event: 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP 28) | SDG Knowledge Hub | IISD.” SDG Knowledge Hub, 2023, https://sdg.iisd.org/events/2023-un-climate-change-conference-unfccc-cop-28/. Accessed 8 December 2023.

12. Joselow, Maxine. “Biden to skip world leaders' summit at COP28 climate talks in Dubai.” Washington Post, 26 November 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/11/26/biden-cop28-climate-summit-dubai/. Accessed 8 December 2023.

Bibliography:

“About Montreal Protocol.” UNEP, https://www.unep.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol. Accessed 8 December 2023.

Clifford, Catherine. “The Supreme Court limited the power of the EPA — so what happens now?” CNBC, 1 July 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/01/the-supreme-court-limited-the-power-of-the-epa-so-what-happens-now.html. Accessed 8 December 2023.

“Event: 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP 28) | SDG Knowledge Hub | IISD.” SDG Knowledge Hub, 2023, https://sdg.iisd.org/events/2023-un-climate-change-conference-unfccc-cop-28/. Accessed 8 December 2023.

Horton, Helena, and Matthew Taylor. “Cop28: president says summit 'has already made history' as negotiations enter final days – as it happened.” The Guardian, 8 December 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2023/dec/08/cop-28-climate-environment-fossil-fuel-latest-news-updates-live. Accessed 8 December 2023.

Hunter, David. “GW Law Library: Library Guides: International Environmental Law: Getting Started.” Library, 21 November 2023, https://law.gwu.libguides.com/IEL. Accessed 8 December 2023.

Hunter, David. “International Environmental Law.” American Bar Association, 5 January 2021, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-19/insights-vol--19---issue-1/international-environmental-law/. Accessed 8 December 2023.

Joselow, Maxine. “Biden to skip world leaders' summit at COP28 climate talks in Dubai.” Washington Post, 26 November 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/11/26/biden-cop28-climate-summit-dubai/. Accessed 8 December 2023.

“The Origins of EPA | US EPA.” Environmental Protection Agency, 5 June 2023, https://www.epa.gov/history/origins-epa. Accessed 8 December 2023.

“Our Mission and What We Do | US EPA.” Environmental Protection Agency, 23 May 2023, https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do. Accessed 8 December 2023.

“Ozone layer recovery is on track, helping avoid global warming by 0.5°C.” UNEP, 9 January 2023, https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc. Accessed 8 December 2023.

“What is Environmental Law - and Why Does it Matter | American Public University.” American Public University, https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/security-and-global-studies/resources/what-is-environmental-law/. Accessed 8 December 2023.

"West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1530. Accessed 8 Dec. 2023.

Failure to Protect Laws: Who is Actually Being Protected?

By: Sari Richmond

Edited by: Clark mahoney and Lauren Levinson

In the early 2000s, a new set of laws began to emerge in multiple states across the U.S. allegedly aimed at furthering protection for children at risk of domestic abuse. These laws, known as “Failure to Protect” (FTP) laws, state that parents or caretakers may be charged with a criminal or civil penalty, or both, if found that they did not prevent the abuse of a child under their care. While the legislation is written with gender-neutral diction, those being prosecuted under FTP laws are overwhelmingly female.[1] As of 2015, 48 states have some form of FTP laws, some even identifying the offense as a felony—leading to equivalent or sometimes greater sentencing compared to penalties enacted on the abuser. In a few states, the law even extends to the prosecution of parents or caretakers that “allow” a child to watch a parent suffer abuse. Supporters of these sets of laws argue that FTP legislation will increase the rate of reporting in abuse cases, therefore driving down the overall rate of abuse against children. However, most FTP laws blatantly disregard financial and social factors, as well as a mother’s status as a victim, in assessing negligence that qualifies as FTP. Courts only examine whether abuse was stopped and reported to the authorities, often failing to acknowledge the lack of realistic ability a mother had to do so.[2] Critics note that for FTP laws to truly be beneficial, the existing framework must be reworked. [1] In order to ensure that these laws do not unfairly impact women, legislation should clearly outline what constitutes the duty of caring for a child in an abusive situation and what steps should be taken once abuse is discovered. Finally, defense clauses for persons who feared for their own or their childrens’ safety should excuse caretakers that were unable to stand up to an abuser. Without changes being made to existing FTP policy, the legislation will  be more damaging than beneficial for families rampaged by abuse and perpetuate a system unfairly harsh on mothers.

A prime example of the harmful effects of vague, unrealistic FTP policy that fails to recognize situational factors of abusive households is the prosecution of Kerry King. A resident of Oklahoma, King is currently serving 30 years of jail time after being charged with FTP—compared to the 18 years that John Purdy, her boyfriend, is serving for physically abusing both King and her children.[3] 

Purdy had a history of abusing King and forcing her to take heroin before King discovered in January 2015 he had begun beating her then 4-year-old daughter, Lilah. Two days after discovering bruises on her daughter’s body, King woke up to find Purdy choking Lilah – and was slammed violently against the wall when she tried to intervene. Purdy insisted Lilah needed to be spanked and ordered King to hold her daughter down, which she did in hopes that the beating would end faster. When it became apparent how harsh Purdy’s blows to Lilah were, King shielded Lilah’s body with her own, causing Purdy to drag her by her hair back into the master bedroom and threaten to kill her. Purdy took King’s cell phone then proceeded to reenter Lilah’s room, which he kept locked until he re-emerged around 6 a.m. the next morning. A day later, a contractor visited the house and King’s housemate snuck out and asked him to contact authorities. Police arrived and found Lilah in a locked room covered in gashes and bruises with chunks of her own hair strewn around her; Purdy was arrested and King assisted authorities in taking her daughter to the hospital.

Only a few days later, King would be arrested for child neglect and permitting child abuse, handcuffed outside her home by officers who wanted to know why she did not call police or—in the eyes of the law—try to help her daughter. Oklahoma’s FTP laws require parents to protect their children from physical harm; and, they are interpreted with the assumption that mothers should inherently know what to do to protect their child or should know from the beginning that abuse is taking place. Compared to other states, Oklahoma’s punishment for FTP is particularly harsh with a maximum life sentence in prison, even if a mother is being abused herself. As found by Samantha Michaels and Ryan Little, hundreds of people, 90% of them women, have been charged on the grounds of Oklahoma’s FTP laws in the past decade.[4] Furthermore, women of color and low socioeconomic status are even more likely to be charged with FTP, as dependency on an abusive partner is statistically higher in these groups.[4]

As King was interrogated by police and attempted to explain the circumstances that barred her from contacting authorities, she was met with stubborn ignorance. Officers told her “you should have ran for help” and “your job as the mom is to protect your child and you failed” as she tried to describe the fear and danger she felt while in the abusive environment. King suffered from sexual abuse as a child, then later physical abuse at the hand of her first husband (Lilah’s father) Ali Jordan Lalehparvaram.

During trial, the prosecution took advantage of King’s complicated, abusive relationship with Purdy and painted a picture for the jury of King picking Purdy over her children. Because Oklahoma’s strict FTP laws require authorities to be contacted, King’s attempts at contacting her mother in the few seconds she could sneak onto a phone saying “help me” did not qualify as seeking help for her children. Under FTP laws, prosecution like this is common and successful: a strategy that protects children from abuse but criminalizes a nonabusive parent who is often a victim themselves. In King’s trial, the jury was convinced she did not perform her duty in protecting her child and found her guilty. It should be noted that the jury was not aware of Purdy’s sentencing – 12 years less than King’s – until after making their decision.[4]

Cases like King’s are not rare—it is becoming increasingly common for nonabusive caretakers to be sentenced to equal or greater jail time compared to abusers on the grounds of FTP laws. However, there is no indication that FTP laws are increasing the reporting rate of domestic abuse. Mothers are fearful of either being investigated for neglect after reporting abuse or being charged with FTP for reporting too late—resulting in abuse not being reported altogether. In addition to this, the innate bias of FTP legislation becomes increasingly clear as black mothers are found guilty by jury more frequently than white mothers, and mothers in general are the ones almost exclusively impacted by this law.[4] While King’s children did not face further abuse at the hands of Lalehparvaram after the trial, it should be recognized that nonabusive mothers losing custody of their children to an ex-partner or the foster care system due to imprisonment often puts the children at a higher risk of abuse. Though the purpose of FTP laws is to deter child abuse, the failure of legislators to acknowledge certain patterns in abuse within FTP laws has made FTP convictions racist and sexist in nature. In order to better the application of FTP laws, a clear outline of what steps can realistically be expected from a caretaker in an abusive situation should be produced. Furthermore, the statistic that half the men who harm their wives also harm their children should actively be recognized, as the law should account for the fact that mothers are frequently victims as well.[4] If FTP laws are properly modified, the current trend of unequal, damaging sentencing could be stalled, and will instead serve their intended purpose: protecting children from abusers.

Notes:

1.  Jeanne Fugate. 2023. “Who's Failing Whom? A Critical Look at Failure-to-Protect Laws.” NYU Law Review. 

2. “How Failure to Protect Laws Punish the Vulnerable.” Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 

3. Scanlan, Chip, Sue Ogrocki, SAMANTHA MICHAELS, and MARK HELENOWSKI. 2023. “How a reporter documented the failure of "failure-to-protect" laws.” Nieman Storyboard. 

4. Samantha Michaels, Mark Helenowski, et al. 2022. “She Never Hurt Her Kids. So Why Is a Mother Serving More Time Than the Man Who Abused Her Daughter? – Mother Jones.” Mother Jones.

Bibliography:

Fugate, Jeanne A. n.d. “Who's Failing Whom? A Critical Look at Failure-to-Protect Laws.” NYU Law Review. https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-76-number-1/whos-failing-whom-a-critical-look-at-failure-to-protect-laws/.

“How Failure to Protect Laws Punish the Vulnerable.” n.d. Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1641&context=healthmatrix.

Michaels, Samantha, Mark Helenowski, Ryan Little, Dorothy E. Roberts, Ruth Murai, Henry Carnell, Siri Chilukuri, and Oliver Milman. 2022. “She Never Hurt Her Kids. So Why Is a Mother Serving More Time Than the Man Who Abused Her Daughter? – Mother Jones.” Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2022/08/failure-to-protect-domestic-abuse-child-oklahoma-women-inequality-prison/.

Scanlan, Chip, Sue Ogrocki, Samantha Michaels, and Mark Helenowski. 2023. “How a reporter documented the failure of "failure-to-protect" laws.” Nieman Storyboard. https://niemanstoryboard.org/stories/investigate-narrative-failure-to-protect-laws-court-reporting-sex-and-race-discrimination/.

CRISPR Cas-9 Technology: Legal Implications of Scientific Advancement

By: Sabrina Hayes

Edited by: Alanna Liu and Olivia Paik

Chances are, you may have heard conversations or read about the relatively new CRISPR Cas-9 technology that allows for gene editing inside our cells. Scientists have found a precise way to take or remove genes in our sequences of DNA, which is incredibly exciting and could cure genetically inherited diseases like sickle cell anemia, and open doors for treatments that were never before imagined. Cancer, a disease caused by genetic or epigenetic mutations in the genome, may finally get a cure with the use of CRISPR [1]. As much as this seems to be optimistic news, there are difficulties with the new technology. This article is going to examine some of the legal and ethical implications of CRISPR, regarding both laws that do exist and those that have yet to be written. Research ethics, domestic regulation concerns, embryonic rights, and international law are prevalent to CRISPR Cas-9 technology, despite being handled outside of the lab.

When looking at the pillars of proper and ethical experimentation, informed consent, justice, and equity are all non-negotiables for an approved scientific experiment. With there being little known about CRISPR technology, it could be difficult to conduct the necessary further experimentation without infringing on those ethical values. The US has numerous laws to protect human subjects used in experiments, and the Environmental Protection Agency has a branch that approves projects done at scientific labs across the nation [2]. The first problem that CRISPR technology faces is breaching the obligation of informed consent. With technology that could edit embryonic DNA, certain mutations or complications that occur could be heritable, and impact an entirely new generation without scientists’ knowledge. If a mutation lay dormant for multiple generations of reproduction, only to occur in a child who never agreed to any experimentation, that would breach the child’s right to informed consent [3]. However, some argue that humans make decisions every day that could possibly alter the health and wellness of their offspring, and so the creation of a cure for thousands of people with thousands of diseases outweighs the risks for future generations. Secondly, considering equity and justice, CRISPR technology may not be accessible to lower-class civilians, and especially in the US, a country without universal healthcare, the discrepancies could grow to disproportionate magnitudes. There have been people who hypothesize a future with genomic quality creating class divides: a potential for genetically engineered ‘superior DNA’ [3]. Despite that not being the case currently, that is one example of legislation that would need to be written and enacted to prevent a comparable situation. 

Following the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the right for states to define an embryo’s personhood has become a topic of debate. As much as it is worth diving into the complexities of each state’s legislation, the rights of women, and the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision, this section will examine embryonic rights from a CRISPR and genetic editing perspective. If a state defines personhood as beginning at conception, any genetic editing of the embryo would become illegal, because the embryo cannot give informed consent. Therefore, embryos that are tested and diagnosed with life-altering diseases could not be treated before birth. On an international level, the regulation of embryonic genetic editing differs from nation to nation. Albania, Bahrain, Belarus, and Croatia all have legislation that prohibits all human embryo research [1]. In addition to the legal rights of embryos, the ethical concerns of what are now called ‘designer babies’ can be considered when determining the powers and accessibility of CRISPR technology [1]. Should parents be allowed to genetically alter their children before birth? Given the dark, immoral history of eugenics across the globe, the possibility of trait selecting for aesthetics is terrifying. Something as simple as a child with blonde curly hair could be decided by the parent, and with the vast database of gene sequencing, it would be simple for scientists to pinpoint which segment of DNA contributes to hair color, and execute that switch using CRISPR Cas-9. The concerns of treating this technology without the wariness required is evident. 

Third, and potentially the most frightening legal concern of CRISPR Cas-9 technology is its use for warfare. Along with the previous discussion of ‘designer babies’ and embryonic editing, leaders of different nations could create their own warrior ‘race’, children genetically modified to possess desirable traits: higher pain tolerance, easier ability to build muscle, etc.. As much as this seems like fear-mongering speculation, Vladimir Putin himself has publicly made comments about how genetically engineered soldiers who cannot feel pain would be “scarier than a nuclear bomb” [4]. The implications of these comments are not to be ignored. Yet with the novelty of CRISPR technology, our international laws have not caught up to the rate of scientific progress. On top of the fear of ‘perfect’ soldiers, CRISPR technology is not only for use in humans. Following the devastation COVID-19 pandemic, scientists and international legal bodies must consider the possibility of genetically adapted bioweapons: viruses with “unusual virulence” without a cure could be released by terrorist organizations, or countries at times of war [1]. Is there a need to adopt the United Nations Convention on Biological and Toxin Weapons? To some extent, it does cover creating or stockpiling biological weapons, but how can that be enforced, especially given the increasing accessibility of CRISPR Cas-9 technology [5]. 

In conclusion, there may be more lingering questions than definite answers. Domestic legislation moves at a slower pace than technological advancements and international legislation can feel completely stagnant in comparison. At the UNESCO General Conference in 1997, Article 10 established that “No research or research application concerning the human genome …should prevail over respect for the human rights” [6]. For the past 25 years, there has been a basis for the ethics of genetic engineering: that they must value basic human rights. However, as embryonic rights are introduced, we are left questioning when exactly those human rights begin to apply? When we consider times of war, the enforcement of basic human rights can feel uncertain. The ramifications of breaching ethical guidelines are minimal compared to breaking laws, and so accountability on all levels may feel unattainable. As much as this article may seem to be full of cynicism and fear, there is also promise in CRISPR Cas-9 technology. The ability to help people’s suffering, cure previously incurable diseases, and drastically improve the quality of life for people with genetic disorders is something to celebrate. Science is complicated, and so is the law. Nonetheless, both provide structure to be grateful for and should inspire more optimism than hopelessness.

Notes:

1. Tahir ul Mir et al., “CRISPR/Cas9: Regulations and Challenges for Law Enforcement to Combat Its Dual-Use,” Forensic Science International 334 (2022): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111274. 

2. “Basic Information About Human Subject Research,” EPA, accessed December 4, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/osa/basic-information-about-human-subjects-research-0

3.  “What are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing?” NIH, last modified August 3, 2017, https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethica l-concerns. 

4. Regalado, Antonio. “The next trick for CRISPR is gene-editing pain away,” MIT Technology Review, August 22, 2019, https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/22/133291/the-next-trick-for-crispr -is-gene-editing-pain-away/

5.  “Biological Weapons Convention,” United Nations, accessed December 4, 2022, https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/

6.  “Records of the General Conference, 29th session, Paris, 21 October to 12 November 1997, v. 1: Resolutions,” UNESCO, 1998, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000110220.page=47

Bibliography:

Brokowski, Carolyn, and Adli, Mahzar. “CRISPR Ethics: Moral Considerations for Applications of a Powerful Tool”, Journal of Molecular Biology, 431, no.1 (2019): 88-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2018.05.044 

EPA. “Basic Information about Human Subjects Research.” Accessed December 4, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/osa/basic-information-about-human-subjects-research-0 

HHS. “Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects ('Common Rule').” Last Modified November 8, 2022. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/index.html 

Mir, Tahir ul, Atif Khurshid Wani, Nahid Akhtar, and Saurabh Shukla. “CRISPR/Cas9: Regulations and Challenges for Law Enforcement to Combat Its Dual-Use.” Forensic Science International 334 (2022): 111274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111274.

NIH. “What are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing?” Last Modified August 3, 2017. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns Polo, Michelle J. “Infertility patients fear abortion bans could affect access to IVF treatment.” NPR, July 21, 2022, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/21/1112127457/infertility-patients-fear-aborti on-bans-could-affect-access-to-ivf-treatment 

Regalado, Antonio. “The next trick for CRISPR is gene-editing pain away,” MIT Technology Review, August 22, 2019, https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/22/133291/the-next-trick-for-crispr-is-gene-editingpain-away/ Regalado, Antonio. “Putin could decide for the world on CRISPR babies.” MIT Technology Journal, September 30, 2019, https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/09/30/132822/putin-could-decide-for-the-world-on-cris pr-babies/ 

United Nations. “Biological Weapons Convention.” Accessed December 4, 2022, https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/ UNESCO. “Records of the General Conference, 29th session, Paris, 21 October to 12 November 1997, v. 1: Resolutions.” 1998, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000110220.page=47

Why Doesn’t the U.S. Have Universal Health Insurance?

By: Samantha Powers

Edited by: Madison Bruno and Sarah Wachs

For decades, the United States health insurance system has been a talking point among political candidates. Former President Barack Obama ran in 2008 with the promise of improving health insurance coverage for all Americans, culminating in the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Six years later, former President Donald Trump ran on a promise to “repeal and replace” so-called “Obama-care” with a new system, which he only partially fulfilled. As the politics surrounding health insurance in America continue to fluctuate, the uninsured population is suffering. According to the CDC, 27.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2022 — a figure reflective of higher insurance rates since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. [1] Health insurance has proven to lead to better treatment and health outcomes, meaning those lacking financial resources are at the highest risk. Low socioeconomic communities are subject to increased risk of conditions such as obesity and type II diabetes, according to the National Institute of Health.[2] These poor health outcomes are unacceptable for a nation as advanced as the U.S.. Universal health insurance would improve health outcomes for millions of Americans, but like all systems, it has its shortcomings. To understand this further, we must look at historical efforts to establish universal health insurance in the U.S.

The U.S. has historically used a mixed public and private approach to health insurance. In contrast, other post-industrial Western nations use almost entirely public systems, generating better health outcomes overall.[3] Despite evidence that a public system would improve health outcomes, U.S. politicians have historically struggled to gain traction in their efforts to establish universal healthcare. In 1994, former President Clinton attempted to pass the Health Security Act, which would have required individuals to purchase baseline health insurance and would have required employees to provide it.[4] The bill — which did not pass — bore a lot of similarities to Obamacare, but with a key difference: it put more pressure on users of employer-based insurance to make an immediate switch to the federal insurance marketplace. Clinton struggled to garner public support for the bill, and his efforts ultimately failed.

Former President Obama picked up the torch and crossed the finish line with his passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. The ACA, also known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was passed to provide impoverished consumers with premium subsidies, expand Medicaid, and support lower-cost healthcare delivery methods.[5] Following implementation, the act saw great success. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, estimates of the number of people who have gained health coverage since 2010 range from 7 million to 16.4 million. In addition, young adults, people of color, and those with low incomes — groups that have “historically been at the greatest risk for lacking insurance… have made the greatest coverage gains.”[6] Not only did the ACA improve health insurance coverage nationwide, it also made strides to protect some of the most vulnerable populations. 

Still, this golden age for U.S. health insurance could not last forever: in the years following the ACA’s passage, it has faced legal challenges across the branches of government. The Supreme Court has upheld some aspects of the ACA and struck down others. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court famously upheld the ACA’s mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance or else they must pay a fine, deciding to treat the policy as a tax.[7] In King v. Burwell, the Court weakened the ACA when it decided that federal subsidies should flow to all states, regardless of whether they have established their public insurance exchanges.[8] The Trump administration also weakened the ACA through a series of executive orders intended to “repeal and replace” the law, but the former president’s efforts fell short of his campaign promises — Trump only repealed parts of the ACA, and he offered no replacement model for the healthcare system. Now, the ACA continues to benefit millions of Americans, but not to the extent it once did. After almost a century of progress in expanding access to health insurance, the United States has regressed due to political pushback and partisan infighting. Americans deserve better than this legal instability: access to affordable health insurance should not depend on who is in office.

When using a comparative approach to the health insurance systems in other developed nations, it is clear that the United States could be doing much more. For example, Nordic countries employ a “welfare state” model that allows for comprehensive, institutionalized, and universal health insurance for their citizens, “regardless of social status or geographic location.”[9] The systems are grounded in public consent and political participation, two major democratic values held by the U.S. — so why does our system not function the same way? One possible explanation is that Nordic nations are far less populous and diverse than the U.S., meaning that a one-size-fits-all approach is more difficult to cater to the U.S. population. Another explanation is that universal healthcare is costly, creates inefficiency in the medical system, and works against progress and innovation in the medical field.[10] This is partially true: in nations with universal healthcare, wait times for medical procedures are much longer. While there is no perfect system, a universal healthcare model ensures that the most underprivileged do not get left behind. Furthermore, universal healthcare can actually save money: uninsured individuals with chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease cost the U.S. more than their insured counterparts.[11] Over time, a healthier populace will pay dividends to the well-being of the U.S. at large and reduce socioeconomic inequality. While a universal healthcare system requires lawmakers to sacrifice some things, it is worth it to protect American lives.

Notes:

1. “U.S. Uninsured Rate Dropped 18% during Pandemic,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 16, 2023, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2023/202305.htm.

2. Gabriel Zieff et al., “Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate,” Medicina 56, no. 11 (2020): 580, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580.

3. Gabriel Zieff et al., “Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate,” Medicina 56, no. 11 (2020): 580, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580.

4. Health Security Act, H.R. 3600, 103rd Cong. (1994).

5. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010).

6. David Blumenthal, Melinda Abrams, and Rachel Nuzum, “The Affordable Care Act at 5 Years,” New England Journal of Medicine 372, no. 25 (2015): 2451–58, https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmhpr1503614.

7. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

8. King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015).

9. Jon Magnussen, Nordic Health Care Systems: Recent Reforms and Current Policy Challenges (Maidenhead, UK: Open Univ. Pr., 2010).

10. Gabriel Zieff et al., “Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate,” Medicina 56, no. 11 (2020): 580, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580.

11. Gabriel Zieff et al., “Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate,” Medicina 56, no. 11 (2020): 580, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580.

Bibliography:

Blumenthal, David, Melinda Abrams, and Rachel Nuzum. “The Affordable Care Act at 5 Years.” New England Journal of Medicine 372, no. 25 (2015): 2451–58. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmhpr1503614. 

Magnussen, Jon. Nordic health care systems: Recent reforms and current policy challenges. Maidenhead, UK: Open Univ. Pr., 2010.

“U.S. Uninsured Rate Dropped 18% during Pandemic.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 16, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2023/202305.htm. 

Zieff, Gabriel, Zachary Y. Kerr, Justin B. Moore, and Lee Stoner. “Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate.” Medicina 56, no. 11 (2020): 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580.