Framing Egg Donation at the State Level

2018 ◽  
pp. 80-113
Author(s):  
Erin Heidt-Forsythe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Narrative Analysis ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Egg Donation ◽  
Policy Area ◽  
Case Selection ◽  
Unique System

This chapter begins a response to the questions of what creates the unique system of egg donation regulations by examining the ways that stakeholders—legislators, advocates, scientists, and invested citizens—frame the issue of egg donation in reproduction and research. I explore one policy area of egg donation politics in the United States, compensation in California, New York, Arizona, and Louisiana between 1990 and 2010. This chapter explores and illuminates framing processes about egg donation through explaining the method of policy narrative analysis, case selection, and political contexts in each state.

Freedom of the Air in the United States

1931 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-251
Author(s):  
Blewett Lee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
New York City ◽  
New Jersey ◽  
York City ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Inland Waters ◽  
State Board

On September 15, 1930, the State Board of Commerce and Navigation of New Jersey made a ruling that aircraft would not be permitted to land on any New Jersey waters above tidewater within the jurisdiction of the state. The application had been made for permission to operate a five passenger flying boat between Nolan's Point, Lake Hopatcong, a vacation resort, and New York City, and to set off a portion of the lake to make a landing place for the hydroairplane. It was stated that other inland waters in New Jersey were being used for a similar purpose, and the ground of the refusal was that aircraft flying from water constituted a menace to surface navigation. This ruling created considerable newspaper comment and aroused vigorous protest from persons interested in aviation, and by order of October 20, 1930, the ruling was limited to Lake Hopatcong.

Governance models of public utility commissions in the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas J. Howe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Action ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Legislature ◽  
The State ◽  
Public Utility ◽  
Political Action Committees ◽  
Special Interest Groups ◽  
Governance Model

Regulation of utilities at the state level in the United States is undertaken by a commission on which anywhere from three to seven commissioners sit and must vote on virtually all significant utility actions, including rate requests, resource plans, acquisitions and mergers, and financing mechanisms. Public utility commissions (PUCs) are, in a very real sense, courts with adjudicatory responsibility over the area of state utility laws. In hearing a utility case, they must follow the state’s statutes and court rules. The commissioners function as judges in this court of public utility law. In a majority of states, commissioners are appointed by the state’s governor with the advice and consent of the state legislature. In a significant minority of states, commissioners are elected by popular vote. However, recent changes in US election law have made it easier for corporations and special interest groups, called political action committees, to influence elections through donations targeting direct voter outreach on behalf of specific candidates. This chapter examines what the entry of political spending in PUC elections means, and whether elected commissioners can adjudicate in the public interest, or will adjudicate for special interests. The chapter concludes that while both the appointment and election governance model can produce both “good” and “bad” commissioners, it is the elected commission that is most at risk of selecting commissioners that will not be truly independent and objective arbiters of the law.

scholarly journals Crisis Standards of Care Implementation at the State Level in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 599-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colton Margus ◽  
Ritu R. Sarin ◽  
Michael Molloy ◽  
Gregory R. Ciottone
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Pediatric Care ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
The Us

AbstractIntroduction:In 2009, the Institute of Medicine published guidelines for implementation of Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) at the state level in the United States (US). Based in part on the then concern for H1N1 pandemic, there was a recognized need for additional planning at the state level to maintain health system preparedness and conventional care standards when available resources become scarce. Despite the availability of this framework, in the years since and despite repeated large-scale domestic events, implementation remains mixed.Problem:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rejuvenates concern for how health systems can maintain quality care when faced with unrelenting burden. This study seeks to outline which states in the US have developed CSC and which areas of care have thus far been addressed.Methods:An online search was conducted for all 50 states in 2015 and again in 2020. For states without CSC plans online, state officials were contacted by email and phone. Public protocols were reviewed to assess for operational implementation capabilities, specifically highlighting guidance on ventilator use, burn management, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, pediatric standards, and reliance on influenza planning.Results:Thirty-six states in the US were actively developing (17) or had already developed (19) official CSC guidance. Fourteen states had no publicly acknowledged effort. Eleven of the 17 public plans had updated within five years, with a majority addressing ventilator usage (16/17), influenza planning (14/17), and pediatric care (15/17), but substantially fewer addressing care for burn patients (9/17).Conclusion:Many states lacked publicly available guidance on maintaining standards of care during disasters, and many states with specific care guidelines had not sufficiently addressed the full spectrum of hazard to which their health care systems remain vulnerable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document