Search Content

Matching Items (2)

Pregnancy Outcomes in ICE Detention Facilities

Description

Policy trends show that pregnant women have been detained in ICE facilities since as early as 2015. As the laws and policies have continued to shift, pregnant women have become more exposed to being detained. Executive Order 13768 made by former President Donald Trump effectively removed all protections against being detained for pregnant women. While the previous policy exempted pregnant women from being detained aside from in extraordinary cases, this executive order puts women at increased risk of being detained while pregnant. The Trump Administration's goal of protecting the American people and promoting national security puts women in a position in which their health status is no longer seen as a detention exemption. There is almost no published work on this topic. It is extremely under-researched and there is an urgent need for more academic, legal, and medical research on the impacts of detaining pregnant women. This paper functions to fill a very pressing research gap in order to highlight the experiences of pregnant women in detention centers and the health outcomes they face as a result of their status as detainees. I argue that detaining pregnant women is a form of gendered violence as it puts them at increased risk of maternal health complications, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, and more. While more women migrate to the United States, the laws and policies regarding detaining pregnant women are often contradictory and it is difficult to ascertain the true number of pregnant women in detention centers. In this paper, I examine the preceding factors to female migration, the climate of detention in the United States, the policies regarding pregnancy, and the outcomes that women experience.

ContributorsNabaty, Samantha Fadi (Author) / Wheatley, Abby (Thesis director) / Cotton, Cassandra (Committee member) / School of Human Evolution & Social Change (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)

Created2021-05

Implications of the Public Charge Rule on Child Health: A Growing Threat to the U.S. Health Care System

Description

In recent months, the current administration has proposed a series of recent federal policy changes, namely the Public Charge Rule, intended to limit immigrants into the U.S. on the basis of financial grounds. In essence, the Public Charge Rule redefines the term “public charge”. Under this policy, most applicants for permanent residency who use any number of public benefits—including Medicaid, government housing, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—count toward being flagged as a public charge, or an individual likely to become dependent on the government for subsistence; this will count against them in residency status applications. Even in the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling and early implementation of the policy, the Public Charge Rule has shown increasing disenrollment from public benefits along with a growing climate of fear, mistrust, and misinformation in relation to connecting with the healthcare system. This policy particularly threatens low-income children, the majority of which are U.S.-born legal citizens, who are incredibly vulnerable to poor health outcomes without longitudinal, preventive health services. Recent studies show that two million children legally eligible for Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) could be disenrolled from the program due to this climate of uncertainty. This policy brief investigates the role of health systems and providers in bracing for the expected impacts and develops a set of policy recommendations that providers and health administrators may use as a tool for protecting patient health and ensuring patient-centered care. To achieve this, a literature review was performed with a compilation of current population health trends and a historical case study. This compilation of data was analyzed to better understand the current political, social, and economic landscape in the United States. From this, three potential policy recommendations were outlined for health providers. Based on current research and the analysis conducted, community engagement and policy advocacy was identified as the most effective policy option for health providers to best provide patient-centered care. However, a more holistic solution should be considered for states that serve populations that are deemed high-need, namely Arizona. Education within clinic walls for providers and patients will bridge the misinformation gap and build shared understanding between provider and patient. Beyond clinic walls, community engagement and policy advocacy mends community mistrust of health systems. Further pilot investigation is warranted at high-utilization medical centers.

ContributorsPatel, Nina (Author) / Reddy, Swapna (Thesis director) / Wilson, Natalia (Committee member) / School of Human Evolution & Social Change (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)

Created2020-05