It Costs What!? To Start a Family? Infertility and the Constitutional Right to Procreate

Access to infertility treatment, particularly Assistive Reproductive Technology (“ART”), such as In Vitro-Fertilization (“IVF”), continues to be prohibitively expensive and is not typically covered by employer- based insurance plans. Only a handful of states require employer-based insurance plans to cover any kind of infertility treatment. However, even those states that do, are inconsistent about which types of treatment must be included in the qualifying plans and differ in their definitions of infertility. These inconsistencies, in both coverage and definition, operate as discriminatory gatekeeping devices, privileging certain would-be parents while discriminating against others by barring access to screening and treatment. Without independent wealth or insurance coverage, most would-be-parents must rely only on their personal savings and an IRS rule)Internal Revenue Code section 213(a) that allows taxpayers to deduct the cost of medical expenses above 7.5% of their adjusted gross income. However, the IRS rule does not allow for the deduction of third-party medical expenses unrelated to the taxpayer. This discriminates against would-be-parents who utilize the assistance of (and bear the cost of) an egg donor or gestational carrier. Access to infertility treatment should be formally recognized as a fundamental liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. To guarantee consistent nationwide coverage from employer-based insurance plans, the infertility community also needs its own accompanying Infertility Discrimination Act (“IDA”), styled like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. An effective IDA should explicitly state that an otherwise inclusive plan that singles out infertility-related benefits for exclusion is discriminatory. Additionally, the tax code should be modified to allow prospective parents to deduct medical costs incurred on behalf of third parties for the purpose of overcoming medical and/or circumstantial infertility

Sweet Sixteen Polka

Illustration of woman holding bookshttps://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cht-sheet-music/13628/thumbnail.jp

Structural basis of DNA gyrase inhibition by antibacterial QPT-1, anticancer drug etoposide and moxifloxacin

New antibacterials are needed to tackle antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Type IIA topoisomerases (topo2As), the targets of fluoroquinolones, regulate DNA topology by creating transient double-strand DNA breaks. Here we report the first co-crystal structures of the antibacterial QPT-1 and the anticancer drug etoposide with Staphylococcus aureus DNA gyrase, showing binding at the same sites in the cleaved DNA as the fluoroquinolone moxifloxacin. Unlike moxifloxacin, QPT-1 and etoposide interact with conserved GyrB TOPRIM residues rationalizing why QPT-1 can overcome fluoroquinolone resistance. Our data show etoposide’s antibacterial activity is due to DNA gyrase inhibition and suggests other anticancer agents act similarly. Analysis of multiple DNA gyrase co-crystal structures, including asymmetric cleavage complexes, led to a ‘pair of swing-doors’ hypothesis in which the movement of one DNA segment regulates cleavage and religation of the second DNA duplex. This mechanism can explain QPT-1’s bacterial specificity. Structure-based strategies for developing topo2A antibacterials are suggested

The water vapour continuum in near-infrared windows – current understanding and prospects for its inclusion in spectroscopic databases

Spectroscopic catalogues, such as GEISA and HITRAN, do not yet include information on the water vapour continuum that pervades visible, infrared and microwave spectral regions. This is partly because, in some spectral regions, there are rather few laboratory measurements in conditions close to those in the Earth’s atmosphere; hence understanding of the characteristics of the continuum absorption is still emerging. This is particularly so in the near-infrared and visible, where there has been renewed interest and activity in recent years. In this paper we present a critical review focusing on recent laboratory measurements in two near-infrared window regions (centred on 4700 and 6300 cm−1) and include reference to the window centred on 2600 cm−1 where more measurements have been reported. The rather few available measurements, have used Fourier transform spectroscopy (FTS), cavity ring down spectroscopy, optical-feedback – cavity enhanced laser spectroscopy and, in very narrow regions, calorimetric interferometry. These systems have different advantages and disadvantages. Fourier Transform Spectroscopy can measure the continuum across both these and neighbouring windows; by contrast, the cavity laser techniques are limited to fewer wavenumbers, but have a much higher inherent sensitivity. The available results present a diverse view of the characteristics of continuum absorption, with differences in continuum strength exceeding a factor of 10 in the cores of these windows. In individual windows, the temperature dependence of the water vapour self-continuum differs significantly in the few sets of measurements that allow an analysis. The available data also indicate that the temperature dependence differs significantly between different near-infrared windows. These pioneering measurements provide an impetus for further measurements. Improvements and/or extensions in existing techniques would aid progress to a full characterisation of the continuum – as an example, we report pilot measurements of the water vapour self-continuum using a supercontinuum laser source coupled to an FTS. Such improvements, as well as additional measurements and analyses in other laboratories, would enable the inclusion of the water vapour continuum in future spectroscopic databases, and therefore allow for a more reliable forward modelling of the radiative properties of the atmosphere. It would also allow a more confident assessment of different theoretical descriptions of the underlying cause or causes of continuum absorption

Fatherless By Law ? : The Law and the Welafare of Children designated illegitimate

Westminster44 p.; 21 c

It Costs What!? To Start a Family? Infertility and the Constitutional Right to Procreate

Access to infertility treatment, particularly Assistive Reproductive Technology (“ART”), such as In Vitro-Fertilization (“IVF”), continues to be prohibitively expensive and is not typically covered by employer- based insurance plans. Only a handful of states require employer-based insurance plans to cover any kind of infertility treatment. However, even those states that do, are inconsistent about which types of treatment must be included in the qualifying plans and differ in their definitions of infertility. These inconsistencies, in both coverage and definition, operate as discriminatory gatekeeping devices, privileging certain would-be parents while discriminating against others by barring access to screening and treatment. Without independent wealth or insurance coverage, most would-be-parents must rely only on their personal savings and an IRS rule)Internal Revenue Code section 213(a) that allows taxpayers to deduct the cost of medical expenses above 7.5% of their adjusted gross income. However, the IRS rule does not allow for the deduction of third-party medical expenses unrelated to the taxpayer. This discriminates against would-be-parents who utilize the assistance of (and bear the cost of) an egg donor or gestational carrier. Access to infertility treatment should be formally recognized as a fundamental liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. To guarantee consistent nationwide coverage from employer-based insurance plans, the infertility community also needs its own accompanying Infertility Discrimination Act (“IDA”), styled like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. An effective IDA should explicitly state that an otherwise inclusive plan that singles out infertility-related benefits for exclusion is discriminatory. Additionally, the tax code should be modified to allow prospective parents to deduct medical costs incurred on behalf of third parties for the purpose of overcoming medical and/or circumstantial infertility