Search

Incarcerated pregnant people face significant barriers when seeking health care services in prisons and jails, but little is known about their transitions from state prison health care systems to outside hospitals. This project analyzed current policies and procedures for care transitions for incarcerated people and presents policy recommendations to address issues of concern. We conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders at a state prison, academic hospital, and private hospital to identify the barriers and facilitators to care transitions. Themes emerging from these interviews were operational, including medical records, communication, and education; and structural, including implicit biases and care of marginalized groups. These findings are likely applicable to similar facilities throughout the United States. A multipronged, interdisciplinary approach is needed to address challenges of care transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the excitement of the wake of the United States Supreme Court's 2013 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. decision, one less-addressed matter is the unresolved status of customary international law in American courts. This Comment highlights a lack of literature engaging comparative study of federally structured nations ' experiences implementing customary international law within their state and federal courts, and proposes that such a study may aid in resolving the American dilemma. This Comment studies Australian and Indian experiences, then uses the findings to look back toward the American experience for possible solutions for the status of customary international law. While not endeavoring to resolve the entire issue of customary international law status, this Comment finds three helpful implications in the comparative study. Two are meta principles, and one is a concrete canon suggestion that would diffuse a subset of problem areas for customary international law implementation in American courts. First, the American solution need not be as extreme as American theorists argue, given that multiple other federal nations successfully engage and implement customary international law within state and federal courts alike without resorting to such absolute strategies. Second, demonstrating that multiple other federal nations have similar reservations toward any sweeping implementation of customary international law, popular condemnations of America's isolationism and exceptionalism from customary international law should be more tightly correlated to a benign and unavoidable function of federalism than to a malicious and uniquely American elitism. Finally, borrowing from an Indian state court decision, this Comment proposes a customary international law equivalent of a Charming Betsy canon for interpreting municipal, state and federal laws. Under such a canon, when there exist multiple possible constructions of a municipal, state, or federal law, the construction conforming to customary international law would be used. Ultimately, this Comment finds that a look outside American borders for resolution of domestic customary international law status provides a fresh perspective to re-focus the standing polarized discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]