Category: Blog

Two Florida Women Subject to Judge-Mandated C-Sections Raise New Concerns About Pregnant People’s Diminishing Right to Bodily Integrity

A recent ProPublica investigation revealed how two Florida women, Cherise Doyley and Brianna Bennet, were forced via a judge-ordered mandate to birth their children through C-sections, overriding their wishes for vaginal births and highlighting a new and concerning element to Florida’s fetal-personhood agenda.

In September of 2024, during her twelfth hour of labor, nurses instructed Cherise Doyle to cover up as they brought in a tablet showing a virtual meeting with a team of lawyers and a robed judge. The hospital had sought an emergency petition for a mandated C-section as doctors thought the unborn child’s life was at risk. Cherise, a professional birthing doula, had experienced three prior C-section deliveries and was against having another due to past hemorrhaging complications. Throughout the three-hour hearing, in which Cherise had no lawyer or advocate present, she explained that she understood the risk of uterine rupture was less than 2% and clearly stated she did not want a C-section. Ultimately, her wishes were dismissed, and the judge ruled that Cherise had no choice; if anything went wrong at all, she would be receiving a C-section. After the baby’s heart rate dropped, Cherise was wheeled into surgery and forcibly underwent the C-section.

A year and a half earlier, Brianna Bennet faced an eerily similar situation.  Brianna had also undergone three prior C-sections, and after experiencing intense complications from those procedures, she wanted a vaginal birth for her fourth child. Twenty-four hours into her active labor, fifteen people crowded into her room for a virtual meeting with a judge. Despite voicing her wishes and concerns centered around her past experiences with C-sections, emphasizing the lack of help she would have if incapacitated in such a way again, the judge voted in favor of the hospital’s petition.  Brianna was forced to have a C-section and suffered emotional trauma afterwards.

Generally, the United States recognizes the constitutional right to bodily integrity, which includes the right to refuse medical treatment. However, in the post-Dobbs world, the country now sees no national consensus as to whether bodily integrity extends to pregnant patients or if fetal rights can supersede; Florida is a state that upholds the latter.

Florida’s stance on restricted bodily integrity for pregnant people is largely a result of the state’s fetal personhood legislation and policy ambitions, including the Heartbeat Protection Act passed in 2024, which criminalizes abortions performed after six weeks. Religious and moral beliefs stand as a large motivating factor behind these practices, but some believe that a more malicious goal is the strongest undercurrent of these court-mandated C-sections.

Florida relies heavily on private equity for its healthcare centers and investors remain hungry for profits. A state law passed in 2025 allows doctors to deliver children via C-sections outside of hospitals; critics of this law point to the role it plays in circulating more money in the private equity-backed healthcare system while simultaneously taking patients away from the few public hospitals left in the state. Because C-section patient costs are, on average, 85% higher than those from a vaginal birth, sexual health advocates worry that this law’s primary goal sees C-sections as a way to generate more profits at the expense of patient safety.

If these fears are founded, it would raise the question of whether hospitals’ petitions for C-sections in cases like Cherise and Brianna’s are truly made in the patient’s best interest or if hospital investors are casting a shadow over these types of decisions. What’s even more concerning is that Cherise and Brianna’s stories aren’t outliers; pregnant people in other states are experiencing similar judicial control over their bodies in the name of fetal personhood via judge-ordered C-sections. With the number of private equity-backed healthcare facilities and hospitals growing nationally every year, this newly emerging legislature and judicial coalition may be building a new profit-churning machine at the expense of pregnant people’s health, safety, autonomy, and constitutional rights.

Cyber Warfare and the HIPAA Security Rule: Protecting Health Data in an Era of Geopolitical Conflict 

Modern warfare has extended into the digital domain, where cyberattacks against private companies and critical infrastructure are increasingly used as tools in geopolitical conflict. The healthcare sector, which heavily relies on digital systems for storing sensitive patient information, is a particularly vulnerable target. This vulnerability, which can be increased during times of international conflict, was recently illustrated during the cyberattack against Stryker—a major U.S. medical device manufacturer. This event raises broader questions of whether the existing Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule is sufficient in protecting personal health information (PHI). In an era where cyberwarfare more commonly targets healthcare companies, it raises the question of who will bear the financial responsibility for heightened security measures to safeguard this data. 

The Stryker Cyberattack

Stryker, a U.S. medical device company with ties to Israel through its acquisition of OrthoSpace, manufactures products ranging from artificial joints to surgical instruments. This month, Stryker experienced a cyberattack attributed to a pro-Iranian hacking group amid escalating tension between the U.S. and Iran. The hacker group stated the attack was retaliation for recent military actions involving the U.S. and its allies. The cyberattack disrupted Stryker’s global operations—affecting systems used for order processing, manufacturing, and shipment of medical devices—while reports indicate the hackers wiped thousands of systems and claimed to have extracted large quantities of company data. 

Although Stryker stated that its medical devices and patient services were not directly compromised, the cyberattack caused widespread operational disruptions and highlights the vulnerability of healthcare companies during geopolitical conflicts. Cybersecurity experts have warned that such attacks may represent a broader escalation in cyberwarfare targeting critical infrastructure, which includes healthcare companies. As a result, private healthcare companies are becoming indirect participants in geopolitical conflicts due to their strategic importance in national infrastructure and the expansive amounts of sensitive information they maintain.

Implications for PHI and HIPAA

The cyberattack against Stryker is not an isolated incident. Healthcare organizations have long been targets of cyberattacks, reflecting persistent vulnerabilities within the sector. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Breach Reporting Portal has documented thousands of breaches involving PHI, affecting millions of individuals. The healthcare industry is a prime target for cybercriminals because it maintains extensive databases containing highly sensitive information—such as Social Security Numbers, medical histories, insurance information, and billing records—which can be monetized through ransomware, identity theft, and insurance fraud. 

Cybersecurity issues are not new, healthcare entities have already faced threats even during times of relative geopolitical calm. However, as cyber-attacks become commonplace in geopolitical conflict, the frequency of attacks may rise, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities and intensifying risks to PHI and patient care. 

Under the HIPAA Security Rule, covered entities and business associates must implement administrative, physical, and technical safeguards to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information (ePHI). This rule requires security measures that are reasonable and appropriate to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to ePHI, effectively establishing a baseline security standard.

Cyberattacks that breach systems directly undermine these core objectives by exposing patient information for financial exploitation, intelligence gathering, or political purposes. In more severe incidents, such attacks can disrupt access to medical records and clinical systems, directly impacting patient safety and the delivery of care. 

The HIPAA Security Rule was developed in the early 2000s, before the emergence of modern cyber warfare used in geopolitical conflict. As cyber threats quickly evolve, health organizations may need to adopt increasingly advanced cybersecurity strategies more commonly used in national defense. However, implementing these advanced security protections often impose significant financial and operational burdens on healthcare entities. 

In light of these challenges, enhanced federal support, guidance, and coordination are necessary to assist healthcare organizations in strengthening their defenses. While the HIPAA Security Rule establishes baseline security requirements, it provides limited specificity regarding how organizations should respond to emerging and escalated threats such as those currently arising from geopolitical conflicts.

Recognizing these risks, federal agencies have begun providing some additional resources. For example, HHS has published materials such as the Security Risk Assessment Tool, the Security Rule Risk Analysis Requirement, and the Security Rule Guidance Material—to address the increased cybersecurity occurrences and provide material for entities to assess security vulnerabilities to ePHI. Similarly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently launched a Campaign Against Cybersecurity Part 1, this February, providing healthcare entities with recommendations for defending against cyber threats.

Despite these efforts, the financial and operational costs associated with implementing robust cybersecurity protections appear to remain with healthcare entities. As cyberattacks become more prevalent with geopolitical conflict, policymakers may need to consider whether existing regulations adequately address large-scale cyber threats. Federal financial and technical assistance should be considered to ensure that healthcare organizations can effectively protect ePHI during periods of geopolitical instability.

The cyberattack against Stryker underscores the growing intersection between geopolitical conflict and healthcare cybersecurity, demonstrating that healthcare organizations are now potential targets in modern cyber warfare. This incident raises critical questions regarding if the current HIPAA Security Rule provides adequate protection for healthcare entities or if enhanced safeguards are necessary. As healthcare organizations face growing pressure to implement advanced cybersecurity measures to defend against international cyber threats, policymakers must also address the practical and financial burdens of compliance to ensure the protection of ePHI.

Biosecurity Catching Up to the Modern Era: A Look Into S.3741

Biotechnology is a rapidly evolving field, touching almost all parts of the human experience. The field has become a stronghold in the United States due to increased investment and a new multi-disciplinary approach to the developing research. Though these innovations are important for the future of disease prevention and the eradication of hunger and petrochemical dependence, it also leaves the door open to potential bioterrorism if these technologies get into the hands of bad actors. Currently, oversight for biosecurity in the US government is spread among multiple agencies without clear and streamlined protections and processes. 

On January 29th, 2026, senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) introduced the Biosecurity Modernization and Innovation Act, a bipartisan bill aimed at closing some of the gaps in current biosecurity procedures. The bill has three main elements: the biosecurity element, the sandbox element, and the streamlining element. 

The biosecurity element creates screening protocols and reporting requirements. The screening protocols are twofold: there are protocols for both DNA sequences and for customers. The protocols for sequences include creating lists of sequences that have potential for security concern, and updating and monitoring those sequences often. The protocols also require that each customer purchasing a sequence is properly vetted and screened before the sequence is given. The bill also creates safeguards for innovation, including expedited processing for institutions and exceptions for non-concerning sequences. The bill requires yearly reports to Congress and biyearly updates to standards. 

The sandbox element directly impacts efforts to create innovation. Sandboxes are “environment[s] featuring short-term trials of proposed tests so that [researchers] can evaluate new regulatory pathways and potential improvements to existing pathways.” They allow for safe and efficient environments for technologies to be tested. The goal of this element is to create secure testing for innovation, and to foster participation of nongovernmental experts in the research and regulation process. 

Finally, the streamlining element gets to the core of what biosecurity advocates have requested from the government. Science organizations, including the Federation of American Scientists and the Nuclear Threat Initiative have requested streamlined processes from the government because of the disjointed processes to protect sequences from getting into the hands of bad actors. The bill gives the White House 90 days after the law is enacted to assess the needs of biosecurity and identify gaps that need to be filled, followed by a period of implementation that includes further legislation or executive action if necessary. 

The bill in its current state is a good first step toward biosecurity regulation in the quickly changing market. The government is making an effort to create long-term fixes to a problem that has before only received short-term band-aids. Its goal is to shift the burden from the researchers to the government, as the burden on researchers has inhibited efficient developments. Proponents of the bill state that this legislation is a step in the right direction, but make it clear that it is only a step, and that there is a lot more change that needs to be made to meet the quickly changing biotechnology environment. There is some concern about the short time period that the White House and executive branch are provided to start making discoveries and changes, but stakeholders find that the timeline matches the urgency that the issue requires. 

It is obvious that this bill is the culmination of the leading senators listening to the requests of important stakeholders. It remains to be seen how this bill will fare in committee, but with bipartisan and stakeholder support, there is a sense of hope that this can kickstart rapid change that is urgently needed. 

The Decline of Antibiotics and the Rise of Antimicrobial Resistance: Could the PASTEUR Act be the Solution?

The discovery of penicillin by Alexander Flemming in 1928, and the golden age of antibiotic development that followed, significantly decreased the global threat of bacterial infections. However, the evolution of countless pathogen strains to resist antibiotics coupled with the lack of funds for antibiotic development has resulted in an acceleration of deaths related to antimicrobial resistance.

Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is the result of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other parasites (collectively called pathogens) becoming immune to antibiotic medications. Some commonly resistant bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus (staph infection), Group A streptococcus (strep throat), and E. Coli and Klebsiella pneumonia (which commonly cause urinary tract infections). Additionally, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and other tough bacterium are especially dangerous for people with compromised immune systems. For example, a person living with the rare genetic disease, Cystic Fibrosis, is constantly combating bacteria like MRSA and Pseudomonas with oral or IV antibiotics. Likewise, these tricky pathogens are evolving to fight off antibiotics and once again posing a serious threat around the world.

According to the World Health Organization, the COVID-19  pandemic caused antibiotic resistance to increase by 40%, which, in turn, heightened the risk posed by common blood, urinary tract, gut, and sexually transmitted infections. The current status of AMR-related deaths in the United States is around 35,000 per year. The Global Research on Antimicrobial Resistance (GRAM) has released a frightening prediction that about 39 million deaths between 2025 and 2050 will be caused by bacterial antimicrobial resistance. 

The lives of thousands of Americans–immunocompromised or not–are at risk, and advocates have been pushing for a solution. The World Health Organization has been actively strategizing on how to increase research and drug development to combat the most threatening list of pathogens. In the United States, one of the potential solutions to the AMR problem is the proposed legislation, Pioneering Antimicrobial Subscriptions to End Up Surging Resistance (PASTEUR) Act, which would create a financial incentive for antibiotic companies to develop new drugs. Antibiotics used to be considered the “low hanging fruit” by drug manufacturers, but they are now a costly gamble. Since the late 1990s, the approval rating for new antibiotic medications has steadily dropped while medications for other illnesses, like cancer, have become drastically more profitable in comparison. Many antibiotic companies are losing money or have gone bankrupt due to the fact that doctors are pressured to treat patients with the cheapest and oldest antibiotics, and only when those drugs prove ineffective do doctors turn to the newer expensive antibiotics. Additionally, when utilizing new antibiotics, doctors use them in the lowest dosage possible so that they stay effective for longer. The PASTEUR Act proposes a solution to the AMR crisis by creating a subscription-like model for antibiotics companies which would allow for the robust development of new medications without the uncertainty of return on investment. The bill was first proposed to Congress in 2020 and has been re-introduced in subsequent years. It was, yet again, placed on the desk of Congress for reconsideration this February. The PASTEUR Act has yet to receive a floor vote, but its passage would be a significant step towards antibiotic research and development.

Organ on a Chip – The Future of Drug Testing and Development

Organ chip technology is transforming modern research because it mimics personalized organ systems and will serve as an alternative to animal testing and other testing methods. The organ on a chip is the size of a coin, clear and flexible with a two-channel microfluidic chip separated by a cell-permeable membrane. The microfluidic chips mimic organ functions or states in the body. The cell-permeable membrane is thin and can be stretched by a vacuum to allow for cellular communication between microfluidic chips. A tissue-specific support layer covers the cell-permeable membrane to aid in tissue growth and maturation. Organ chips are grown in a small device that controls chip movement so it can properly demonstrate the functions of the body. 

The first organ on a chip was developed in the 2000s. It was designed to model excess fluid accumulation in diseased lungs. The organ chip mimicked the airways in the lungs and even made a similar “crackle” noise, a symptom in patients with diseased lungs. Following the development of the lung chip in 2010, fifteen more chips were developed after other organs and systems in the body and can even mimic diseases and genetic disorders in the body. Beyond human systems, organ chips have been developed to model dogs, rats, and mice. 

As opposed to traditional animal testing methods, organ on a chip provides information about a drug’s effect specifically on human cells. Organ on a chip technology is intended to accurately represent the body’s organs and functions on a small, simple to use device to support a faster way to test the impact of drugs and their doses on the body. The technology is capable of determining whether new drugs are safe by discovering early warning signs which helps researchers accurately understand disease effects on the body. This information and technological ability can lead to tailored treatments for individuals by providing researchers information on how specific people will respond to a drug. A “Patient-on-a-Chip” program is being developed to provide patients with tailored treatments to make care safer and more effective. Scientists collect blood or skin cell samples that are converted into special stem cells and then created into organ cells containing the person’s genetics. Scientists can test drugs on the organ chips and see how the specific person would respond before the person takes the medicine.

Since this is a novel technology, regulatory agencies can be less likely to accept the data from an organ chip and may require additional information to confirm the accuracy of the findings. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has conveyed interest in organ chips through working with pharmaceutical industries to help further develop the technology. In April 2025, FDA announced that the administration would be phasing out animal testing in replacement of human based models, such as organ chips. To implement this change, FDA will be updating policy and regulations to allow for new methods during drug testing. In doing so,  FDA expects that this will accelerate drug testing and reveal human-specific side effects that may not be revealed during animal studies. The Human Liver-Chip was recently accepted into FDA’s Innovative Science and Technology for Advancing New Drugs pilot program, which allows for the use of drug development tools that do not meet regulatory standards but provide supportive data. This program is intended to aid in the acceptance of new drug development tools. 

NASA has also expressed interest in the technology and plans to send organ chips to the Moon to study effects of gravity and space radiation. Microgravity from space travel can make the human body age at an accelerated rate. Researchers developed a program called Tissue Chips in Space 2.0 that sends organ chips to the International Space Station with the goal of studying the effects of microgravity to understand how diseases develop, test treatments, and improve astronaut health during space travel. 

HHS Probe Into States’ Medicaid Coverage of Abortion Care: Will Abortion Care Policies Truly be Left up to the States in the Wake of Dobbs?

In 2022, the Supreme Court, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, holding that abortion care is not a fundamental right under the Constitution. Therefore, access to abortion care is now left up to the states. However, the Trump Administration has also signaled that the current United States Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) priorities must protect the right of religious exercise and has expressed a goal to reevaluate programs to ensure enforcement of the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funds from being used for elective abortions. The Administration’s statements have created questions about whether future abortion care policies will actually be left to the states. 

On March 19, 2025, HHS’s Office of Civil Rights announced that it plans to investigate thirteen states, including California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts, for allegedly compelling health care providers to provide abortion care. While the full list of the states under investigation has not been released, the states included are those that mandate state-regulated health insurance plans to cover abortion care. The actions are being taken under the Weldon Amendment that prohibits states from discriminating against health care providers that refuse to cover abortion. The Biden Administration interpreted the amendment not to apply to healthcare sponsors, but this administration believes that interpretation is too limited. While the Trump Administration had previously rescinded civil rights guidance issued by the Biden Administration that largely sought to protect abortion access, this investigation has escalated efforts to limit abortion care. 

Maryland Governor Wes Moore and Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey have publicly responded to the letters they received from HHS and both made clear that their priorities are to continue ensuring access to reproductive health care in their states. While it remains unclear what the outcome of these investigations will be, they indicate a potential threat to states that have decided to continue ensuring access to abortion. Reproductive health care advocates have expressed a concern that this investigation indicates that the Trump Administration does not truly intend to “leave abortion to the states” and that further federal interference with states that have protected abortion access post-Dobbs may be imminent. In addition, concerns have arisen that the investigations do not have weight under law, as they did not arise out of any complaints of the states, and advocates have expressed fear that they have merely arisen to advance the Administration’s political agenda, rather than out of a genuine concern of violation of the law. For citizens, abortion care post-Dobbs has been uncertain, with access largely depending on geography and an increase in travel for abortion access. This investigation indicates the potential that the Trump Administration plans to take action to further limit abortion access, particularly meaning that low-income citizens with less ability to travel may experience further difficulty in access.