The constitution of the World Health Organization states that “the attainment of the highest possible level of health is a fundamental human right.” This principle has consequences for government under a variety of political theories. For those who, like the framers of our Declaration ofIndependence, accept the concept of natural or “inalienable” rights, a right to the highest possible level of health suggests that government has a duty to promote and protect the health of its people. For those who do not accept the concept of natural rights but who instead embrace utilitarian principles, the promotion of the greatest good for all also suggests that the government has a responsibility to provide equitable access to health care for all its people. For those who accept John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, health care is a “primary good” that must be distributed fairly and justly, and government has a responsibility to ensure that this is done. For those who eschew theoretical constructs but who believe that modem health care should not be regarded as commodity to be bought and sold in the market-place because of its unprecedented ability to relieve suffering and to pre-serve life and health, government has a responsibility to ensure that the highest quality health care is equitably accessible.
Voting rights advocates should explore section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act as a vehicle to combat voter intimidation.
Mandatory arbitration for guestworkers, a uniquely vulnerable group, will result in class inequality and worse conditions for all workers.
DOJ guidance for mentally impaired detainees in immigration removal proceedings should be amended to provide counsel at earlier signs of incompetence.
An evidentiary privilege to protect workers' confidential communications from disclosure in federal and state court proceedings would support unions.