Epidemiological association between water salinity and blood pressure in coastal populations: ambient temperature’s role as a confounder

Due to global climate change and anthropogenic activities, many low-lying coastal communities experience high sodium in drinking water as a result of saltwater intrusion, an emerging environmental health problem in many coastal regions. Drinking saline water is associated with higher sodium intake and hypertension. Exposure to higher ambient temperatures is common in many regions affected by saltwater intrusion, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions. Little attention has been given to the role of ambient temperature in the epidemiological association between drinking saline water and population blood pressure. We argue that high ambient temperatures increase water salinity and influence communities' sodium intake, urinary sodium excretion, and blood pressure. Hence, we hypothesize that ambient temperature is a potential confounder for the relationship between drinking saline water and population blood pressure. Testing the hypothesis requires a detailed measurement of urinary, blood, and sweat biomarkers (e.g., sodium), the population's blood pressure, and their drinking water’s salinity. An increasing number of coastal regions and islands will face the dual burden of high ambient heat exposure and saltwater intrusion in the future. Future studies are needed to determine the association between drinking saline water and blood pressure after adjusting for ambient temperature in saltwater intrusion-affected regions

Biological Citizenship and the Children of Same-Sex Marriage

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not, consistent with the Due Process Clause, deny same-sex couples the right to marry. To allow otherwise, said the Court, would “harm and humiliate the children of same sex marriage.” Thus, it was hoped that marriage equality would provide greater security for the children of same-sex couples. And the need for such protections are increasingly important given that, with advances in assisted reproduction techniques, it is easier than ever for same-sex couples to become parents. Indeed, when it comes to procreation, same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages are becoming much more alike. But there remains an obvious difference between the two. Namely, same-sex couples are unable to procreate without the assistance of a third-party, meaning that although both parents in a same-sex marriage may qualify as legal parents, only one (at most) will qualify as a biological parent. But from a constitutional perspective, should that distinction matter? The Supreme Court, in both Obergefell and its recent decision in Pavan v. Smith has indicated that, when it comes to the governmental benefits associated with marriage, the answer is “no.” Nonetheless, within the realm of immigration law, the State Department is using the absence of biological ties against the children of same-sex marriage, and on that basis, denying them United States citizenship. Although nothing in the Immigration and Naturalization Act requires that citizens, in order to transmit citizenship, possess a biological relationship with their children born abroad, the State Department has begun denying citizenship petitions on behalf of children from same-sex couples simply because the citizen parent, despite being the child’s legal parent, is not the biological parent. This Article argues that the State Department’s approach is not only unreasonable and, thus, not entitled to Chevron deference, but more importantly, is an unconstitutional infringement of both the right to marry and the right to parent, as those rights have developed by the Supreme Court. In sum, the State Department’s practice provides a poignant example of both the ongoing discrimination and the challenging questions that remain, post-Obergefell, in the quest for true marriage equality