ATLANTA – With the U.S. Supreme Court set to hand down rulings in major cases dealing with federal health insurance subsidies, same-sex marriage bans and drugs used in lethal injection sometime on June 25, 26 or 29, 2015, Georgia State University has experts available to discuss these cases that will have major impacts on societal issues in America.
All contacts for these professors are available in the contact box above, visible to reporters registered with Newswise and who are logged in.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (King v. Burwell)
Erin Fuse Brown, assistant professor of law, has written extensively about the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) and is part of the university’s Center for Law, Health and Society.
Fuse Brown wrote previously for Georgia State University:
“A ruling for the plaintiffs in the King v. Burwell case will immediately cut off subsidies for over 9 million people and cause premiums to jump 35 percent in the individual insurance market. This will hurt even those who do not currently receive subsidies, destabilize the insurance market, and saddle providers with more uninsured patients and uncompensated care costs.”
She teaches health law related to finance and delivery, as well as administrative law. Her research deals with the intersection between the business aspects and regulations of health care systems, and has also dealt with the structural fragility of the right to health care outlined in the Affordable Care Act.
A list of her publications and a full biography are available online at http://law.gsu.edu/profile/erin-fuse-brown/.
PREVENTIVE CARE AND THE ACA (King v. Burwell)
Terry Pechacek, professor in Georgia State University’s School of Public Health, says that overturning federal subsidies for health insurance will, with fewer people having insurance, have an impact on preventive care – something that every insurance plan is required to have under the Affordable Care Act.
“People would stop having primary care visits and getting help with effective treatments for preventable diseases, such as hypertension and diabetes, and certainly smoking,” he explained.
Pechacek is the former deputy director for research translation at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office on Smoking and health. He has been involved in research into smoking and tobacco use prevention and cessation policy; he also has been involved in the preparation of U.S. Surgeon General Reports on Smoking and Health since 1979.
A list of his publications and a full biography are online at http://publichealth.gsu.edu/profile/terry-pechacek/.
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (Obergefell v. Hodges)
Tanya Washington, professor of law, is part of an amicus brief in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, challenging bans on same-sex marriage; the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that states had the right to ban the recognition of same-sex marriage. Washington argues that the bans are harmful to the children of same-sex couples.
Washington outlined multiple ways the court could rule, with some possible rulings in favor of the plaintiffs being narrower than other possibilities that would possibly afford greater civil rights for gays and lesbians in the future, but with a likely outcome being the striking down of state bans on same-sex marriage based on a “rational basis review.”
“The rational basis test permits a discriminatory law to survive constitutional challenge if it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest,” she explained. “The burden is on the challenger to establish that there is no conceivable justification for the ban.
“If the majority determines that rational basis applies, it can still invalidate marriage bans by ruling that the ends they pursue are not legitimate or that the bans do not achieve those ends,” she continued.
This possibility would be much narrower in its constitutional impact in providing a basis to broaden gay and lesbian civil rights, but could be used as support for future challenges to discrimination based on sexual orientation, Washington said.
For more information about Washington, visit http://law.gsu.edu/profile/tanya-monique-washington/.
LETHAL INJECTION (Glossip v. Gross)
In the case of Glossip v. Gross, which presents a challenge to lethal injection protocols in Oklahoma, the court is addressing the question of which drugs and which protocols can be used in execution. It comes as states with the death penalty are having trouble obtaining one of the most commonly used drugs in lethal injection, sodium thiopental. Additionally, the case comes after a series of botched executions resulting from new protocols due to the drug shortages.
“Underlying the specific questions about which drugs and which protocols can be used in executions is the question of how deeply the Court is willing to wade into these debates, some of which require a high level of scientific expertise,” said Lauren Sudeall Lucas, assistant professor at Georgia State’s College of Law. “The Supreme Court has always been hesitant to micromanage states in their actual imposition of the death penalty, and has never held a method of execution unconstitutional.”
If the court finds the method Oklahoma used in recent executions as unconstitutional – which is unlikely, Lucas said – it may raise questions about the feasibility of lethal injection in the future, because many companies now refuse to provide the drugs used in executions.
“[Conservative justices’] comments [during arguments] seemed to imply discomfort with a scenario in which lethal injection opponents have created the factual predicate for their claims of unconstitutionality,” she said.
For more information about Lucas, including a biography, visit http://law.gsu.edu/profile/lauren-sudeall-lucas/.
RSS