Alimony: What Social Science and Popular Culture Tell Us About Women, Guilt, and Spousal Support After Divorce

Over the past few decades, fewer divorcing women have received alimony, and when alimony awards are made, they are in declining amounts and for shorter periods of time. Conventional explanations of this trend focus on legal changes that have made divorces easier to obtain, as well as social changes that have led to larger numbers of married women in the paid workforce, and to greater social tolerance of divorce. Certainly these changes partly explain the downward trend in alimony, but they do not fully explain why alimony awards continue to decline, even among women who do not have viable job skills at the time of divorce and who experience severe post-divorce financial hardship. This article looks to the women themselves and uses social science research to examine gender differences in emotional reactions to marriage and divorce. The article argues that women\u27s tendency to assume emotional responsibility for the success of the marriage and parenting, and in particular women’s greater susceptibility to feelings of guilt and shame about divorce and parenting, make it difficult for many women to successfully negotiate for alimony. Further, the article looks at women\u27s feelings and behaviors in negotiation situations, arguing that social pressures exacerbate the feelings of guilt over the divorce and lead women to accept unfavorable outcomes. Ultimately, this article concludes that the legal system may need to impose solutions, such as mandatory pre-nuptial agreements or alimony formulas, in order to achieve a degree of predictability and fairness in alimony outcomes

Invisible Stripes: The Problem of Youth Criminal Records

It is common knowledge in American society that persons who have criminal records will have a more difficult path to obtaining legitimate employment. Similarly, conventional wisdom acknowledges the unfortunate fact that young people, on average, are more prone to engage in risky, impulsive, and other ill-advised behavior that might result in brushes with law enforcement authorities. This article addresses the difficult situation faced by people whose now disabling criminal records were attained while they were under the age of 21. Not only do such individuals face stigma and possible discrimination from potential employers, the efforts of today’s young people to “go straight” are hampered by nearly unlimited online access to records of even the briefest of encounters with law enforcement, even if those encounters did not result in conviction. This article examines the broad scope and troubling effects of the intersection between policies attempting to “reform” youthful offenders, and policies giving any curious citizen access to records about a person’s youthful indiscretions, no matter how minor. The article concludes that current practices are inconsistent with what we know about the development of young people, are inconsistent with developing U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction, and are undermining the social goal of rehabilitating youthful offenders, and suggests that we need to restrict access to and use of information about contacts that offenders under the age of 21 have had with the criminal justice system

Underage Drinking: Does Current Policy Make Sense?

This Article examines the history of laws and policies regulating consumption of alcoholic beverages by young people in the United States, and examines youth drinking patterns that have emerged over time. Currently, all 50 states have a minimum drinking age of 21. Various rationales are offered for the 21 drinking age, such as the claim that earlier drinking hinders cognitive functions, and the claim that earlier drinking increases the lifetime risk of becoming an alcoholic. While there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that it would be better for adolescents and young adults if they did not drink prior to age 21, research shows that vast numbers of underage persons consume alcoholic beverages, often in large quantities. The Article discusses the question of why underage drinking laws have not been able to effectively stop underage drinking. Normally, discussions of underage drinking focus on persons under age 21 as one group. This Article breaks underage drinkers into two groups: minors (i.e. drinkers under the age of 18) and young adults (i.e. drinkers between the ages of 18 and 21). The Article goes on to separately analyze the drinking patterns and reasons for drinking. The article concludes that prohibitions on drinking by minors could be made more effective, because restrictions on activities by minors are expected and normally honored by parents, law and society. The Article also concludes, however, that the enforcement of a drinking prohibition for young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 is doomed to remain largely ineffective because the drinking ban is wholly inconsistent with other legal policies aimed at that age group. The Article discusses three areas (health care decisions, educational decisions, and smoking) where persons over the age of 18 have virtually unfettered personal discretion, and applies the reasoning of those situations to the decision about whether to consume alcoholic beverages. The Article also compares the total drinking ban for young adults with the graduated privilege policies applied to drivers\u27 licensing. The Article concludes that the total prohibition of alcohol consumption for young adults is inconsistent with other policies affecting young adults, and this inconsistency, coupled with harms that may come from the 21 drinking age; make the current policies ineffective and ill-advised for young adults between the ages of 18 and 21

Design and baseline characteristics of the finerenone in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in diabetic kidney disease trial

Background: Among people with diabetes, those with kidney disease have exceptionally high rates of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality and progression of their underlying kidney disease. Finerenone is a novel, nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist that has shown to reduce albuminuria in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) while revealing only a low risk of hyperkalemia. However, the effect of finerenone on CV and renal outcomes has not yet been investigated in long-term trials. Patients and Methods: The Finerenone in Reducing CV Mortality and Morbidity in Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD) trial aims to assess the efficacy and safety of finerenone compared to placebo at reducing clinically important CV and renal outcomes in T2D patients with CKD. FIGARO-DKD is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, event-driven trial running in 47 countries with an expected duration of approximately 6 years. FIGARO-DKD randomized 7,437 patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate >= 25 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and albuminuria (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio >= 30 to <= 5,000 mg/g). The study has at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in the risk of the primary outcome (overall two-sided significance level alpha = 0.05), the composite of time to first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. Conclusions: FIGARO-DKD will determine whether an optimally treated cohort of T2D patients with CKD at high risk of CV and renal events will experience cardiorenal benefits with the addition of finerenone to their treatment regimen. Trial Registration: EudraCT number: 2015-000950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02545049