The Impact of Immigration Policy Changes on Preterm Birth Rates in Texas: An Examination of Border and Nonborder Regions.

BACKGROUND: Our study examined the acute and sustained impact of immigration policy changes announced in January 2017 on preterm birth (PTB) rates among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women in Texas's border and nonborder regions. METHODS: Using Texas birth certificate data for years 2008 through 2020, we used a multiple group interrupted time series approach to explore changes in PTB rates. RESULTS: In the nonborder region, the PTB rate among Hispanic women of any race was 8.64% in 2008 and was stable each year before 2017 but increased by .29% (95% CI [.12, .46]) annually between 2017 and 2020. This effect remained statistically significant even when compared with that of non-Hispanic white women (p = .014). In the border areas, the PTB rate among Hispanic women of any race was 11.67% in 2008 and remained stable each year before and after 2017. No significant changes were observed when compared with that of non-Hispanic white women (p = .897). In Texas as a whole, the PTB rate among Hispanic women of any race was 10.16% in 2008 and declined by .07% (95% CI [-.16, -.03]) per year before 2017, but increased by .16% (95% CI [.05, .27]) annually between 2017 and 2020. The observed increase was not statistically significant when compared with that of non-Hispanic white women (p = .326). CONCLUSIONS: The January 2017 immigration policies were associated with a sustained increase in PTB among Hispanic women in Texas's nonborder region, suggesting that geography plays an important role in perceptions of immigration enforcement. Future research should examine the impact of immigration policies on maternal and child health, considering geography and sociodemographic factors.

Setting a Minimum Standard of Care in Clinical Trials: Human Rights and Bioethics as Complementary Frameworks.

For the past few decades, there has been intense debate in bioethics about the standard of care that should be provided in clinical trials conducted in developing countries. Some interpret the Declaration of Helsinki to mean that control groups should receive the best intervention available worldwide, while others interpret this and other international guidelines to mean the best local standard of care. Questions of justice are particularly relevant where limited resources mean that the local standard of care is no care at all. Introducing human rights law into this complex and longstanding debate adds a new and important perspective. Through non-derogable rights, including the core obligations of the right to health, human rights law can help set a minimum standard of care.

Holding the World Bank accountable for leakage of funds from Africa's health sector.

This article explores the accountability of international financial institutions (IFIs), such as the World Bank, for human rights violations related to the massive leakage of funds from sub-Saharan Africa's health sector. The article begins by summarizing the quantitative results of Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys performed in six African countries, all showing disturbingly high levels of leakage in the health sector. It then addresses the inadequacy of good governance and anticorruption programs in remedying this problem. After explaining how the World Bank's Inspection Panel may serve as an accountability mechanism for addressing the leakage of funds, discussing violations of specific Bank policies and procedures that would support a claim related to leakage and examining the relevance of human rights concerns to such as claim, the article explores some of the Panel's limitations and the positive steps taken to address these concerns.