Ruthless Health Law
The opinions of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg consistently emphasized values pertinent to the challenge to the Affordable Care Act that will be argued before the Court in November — particularly values of equality and common interests.
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The New England journal of medicine 2020-11, Vol.383 (21), p.e115-e115 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e115 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 21 |
| container_start_page | e115 |
| container_title | The New England journal of medicine |
| container_volume | 383 |
| creator | Charo, R. Alta |
| description | The opinions of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg consistently emphasized values pertinent to the challenge to the Affordable Care Act that will be argued before the Court in November — particularly values of equality and common interests. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1056/NEJMp2030358 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2447836739</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2447836739</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-254b206458dd6ad8632a82d9214ced68050b2d63c5b971666cef3aee37125ee13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpt0EtLAzEUBeAgiq3Vla6loAsXjia5eS6l1BdVQXQdMpNb2jLTqZMZxH9vpFVEvJu7-TgcDiFHjF4wKtXl4_j-YcUpUJBmi_SZBMiEoGqb9CnlJhPaQo_sxbig6Ziwu6QH3FptqeiTw-eunZUY4_AWfdnOhhP_vk92pr6MeLD5A_J6PX4Z3WaTp5u70dUkK0DLNuNS5JwqIU0IygejgHvDg-VMFBiUoZLmPCgoZG41U0oVOAWPCJpxichgQM7Wuaumfuswtq6axwLL0i-x7qLjQmgDSoNN9OQPXdRds0ztklKcKaZBJnW-VkVTx9jg1K2aeeWbD8eo-xrL_R4r8eNNaJdXGH7w9zoJnK5BVUW3xEX1f84n951rQA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2462161735</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ruthless Health Law</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>New England Journal of Medicine</source><creator>Charo, R. Alta</creator><creatorcontrib>Charo, R. Alta</creatorcontrib><description>The opinions of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg consistently emphasized values pertinent to the challenge to the Affordable Care Act that will be argued before the Court in November — particularly values of equality and common interests.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0028-4793</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1533-4406</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2030358</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32997904</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Massachusetts Medical Society</publisher><subject>Abortion ; Clinical decision making ; Decision making ; Equal rights ; Equality ; Female ; Ginsburg, Ruth Bader ; Health care ; Health Services Accessibility - legislation & jurisprudence ; Humans ; Insurance Coverage - legislation & jurisprudence ; Male ; Medically Uninsured - legislation & jurisprudence ; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - legislation & jurisprudence ; Reproductive Rights - legislation & jurisprudence ; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ; Society ; Supreme Court Decisions ; United States ; Voting rights ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>The New England journal of medicine, 2020-11, Vol.383 (21), p.e115-e115</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-254b206458dd6ad8632a82d9214ced68050b2d63c5b971666cef3aee37125ee13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp2030358$$EPDF$$P50$$Gmms$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2030358$$EHTML$$P50$$Gmms$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,2746,2747,26080,27901,27902,52357,54039</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32997904$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Charo, R. Alta</creatorcontrib><title>Ruthless Health Law</title><title>The New England journal of medicine</title><addtitle>N Engl J Med</addtitle><description>The opinions of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg consistently emphasized values pertinent to the challenge to the Affordable Care Act that will be argued before the Court in November — particularly values of equality and common interests.</description><subject>Abortion</subject><subject>Clinical decision making</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Equal rights</subject><subject>Equality</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health Services Accessibility - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Insurance Coverage - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medically Uninsured - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Reproductive Rights - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2</subject><subject>Society</subject><subject>Supreme Court Decisions</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Voting rights</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>0028-4793</issn><issn>1533-4406</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpt0EtLAzEUBeAgiq3Vla6loAsXjia5eS6l1BdVQXQdMpNb2jLTqZMZxH9vpFVEvJu7-TgcDiFHjF4wKtXl4_j-YcUpUJBmi_SZBMiEoGqb9CnlJhPaQo_sxbig6Ziwu6QH3FptqeiTw-eunZUY4_AWfdnOhhP_vk92pr6MeLD5A_J6PX4Z3WaTp5u70dUkK0DLNuNS5JwqIU0IygejgHvDg-VMFBiUoZLmPCgoZG41U0oVOAWPCJpxichgQM7Wuaumfuswtq6axwLL0i-x7qLjQmgDSoNN9OQPXdRds0ztklKcKaZBJnW-VkVTx9jg1K2aeeWbD8eo-xrL_R4r8eNNaJdXGH7w9zoJnK5BVUW3xEX1f84n951rQA</recordid><startdate>20201119</startdate><enddate>20201119</enddate><creator>Charo, R. Alta</creator><general>Massachusetts Medical Society</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0TZ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K0Y</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201119</creationdate><title>Ruthless Health Law</title><author>Charo, R. Alta</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-254b206458dd6ad8632a82d9214ced68050b2d63c5b971666cef3aee37125ee13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Abortion</topic><topic>Clinical decision making</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Equal rights</topic><topic>Equality</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health Services Accessibility - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Insurance Coverage - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medically Uninsured - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Reproductive Rights - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2</topic><topic>Society</topic><topic>Supreme Court Decisions</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Voting rights</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Charo, R. Alta</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Pharma and Biotech Premium PRO</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>New England Journal of Medicine</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The New England journal of medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Charo, R. Alta</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ruthless Health Law</atitle><jtitle>The New England journal of medicine</jtitle><addtitle>N Engl J Med</addtitle><date>2020-11-19</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>383</volume><issue>21</issue><spage>e115</spage><epage>e115</epage><pages>e115-e115</pages><issn>0028-4793</issn><eissn>1533-4406</eissn><abstract>The opinions of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg consistently emphasized values pertinent to the challenge to the Affordable Care Act that will be argued before the Court in November — particularly values of equality and common interests.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Massachusetts Medical Society</pub><pmid>32997904</pmid><doi>10.1056/NEJMp2030358</doi></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0028-4793 |
| ispartof | The New England journal of medicine, 2020-11, Vol.383 (21), p.e115-e115 |
| issn | 0028-4793 1533-4406 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2447836739 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; New England Journal of Medicine |
| subjects | Abortion Clinical decision making Decision making Equal rights Equality Female Ginsburg, Ruth Bader Health care Health Services Accessibility - legislation & jurisprudence Humans Insurance Coverage - legislation & jurisprudence Male Medically Uninsured - legislation & jurisprudence Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - legislation & jurisprudence Reproductive Rights - legislation & jurisprudence Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Society Supreme Court Decisions United States Voting rights Womens health |
| title | Ruthless Health Law |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T02%3A26%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ruthless%20Health%20Law&rft.jtitle=The%20New%20England%20journal%20of%20medicine&rft.au=Charo,%20R.%20Alta&rft.date=2020-11-19&rft.volume=383&rft.issue=21&rft.spage=e115&rft.epage=e115&rft.pages=e115-e115&rft.issn=0028-4793&rft.eissn=1533-4406&rft_id=info:doi/10.1056/NEJMp2030358&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2447836739%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2462161735&rft_id=info:pmid/32997904&rfr_iscdi=true |