Does lower use of academic affiliation by university faculty in top U.S. newspapers contribute to misinformation about abortion?

BACKGROUND: University faculty are considered trusted sources of information to disseminate accurate information to the public that abortion is a common, safe and necessary medical health care service. However, misinformation persists about abortion's alleged dangers, commonality, and medical necessity. METHODS: Systematic review of popular media articles related to abortion, gun control (an equally controversial topic), and cigarette use (a more neutral topic) published in top U.S. newspapers between January 2015 and July 2020 using bivariate analysis and logistic regression to compare disclosure of university affiliation among experts in each topic area. RESULTS: We included 41 abortion, 102 gun control, and 130 smoking articles, which consisted of 304 distinct media mentions of university-affiliated faculty. Articles with smoking and gun control faculty experts had statistically more affiliations mentioned (90%, n = 195 and 88%, n = 159, respectively) than abortion faculty experts (77%, n = 54) (p = 0.02). The probability of faculty disclosing university affiliation was similar between smoking and gun control (p = 0.73), but between smoking and abortion was significantly less (Ave Marginal Effects - 0.13, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer faculty members disclose their university affiliation in top U.S. newspapers when discussing abortion. Lack of academic disclosure may paradoxically make these faculty appear less 'legitimate.' This leads to misinformation, branding abortion as a 'choice,' suggesting it is an unessential medical service. With the recent U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and subsequent banning of abortion in many U.S. states, faculty will probably be even less likely to disclose their university affiliation in the media than in the past.

Assessment of Reasons for Ownership and Attitudes About Policies Among Firearm Owners With and Without Children.

Importance: Given the dangers that firearms in the home pose to children, it is critical to engage parents in effective firearm safety counseling. This requires a broader understanding of how the presence of children in the home is associated with motivations surrounding gun ownership. Objective: To examine the association of having children in the home and gun owners' attitudes and beliefs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional survey study analyzed data from the National Lawful Use of Guns Survey conducted in 2019. A representative sample of 3698 adult gun owners nationwide were randomly invited to participate, with a 56.5% survey response rate. Survey responses were weighted to account for survey nonresponse and selection bias, and comparison groups were matched by age. Statistical analysis was performed in 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reasons for gun ownership, symbolic meaning of guns, and attitudes toward gun policies. Results: Of the 2086 respondents, 383 (18.4%) had children in the home, 68.7% (95% CI, 66.4%-71.0%) were male, 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.7%) were Black, 76.3% (95% CI, 73.8%-78.6%) were White, 79.4% (95% CI, 77.5%-81.2%) were living in metropolitan areas, 51.3% (95% CI, 48.9%-53.8%) identified as Republican; 34.7% (95% CI, 32.6%-36.9%) were aged 60 years or older. Despite the majority of respondents feeling safe in their local communities (respondents with children: 93.4% [95% CI,: 89.3%-96.0%]; without children: 88.9% [95% CI, 87.0%- 90.6%]), 92.3% (95% CI, 87.0%-95.6%) of respondents with children stated the primary reason for gun ownership was to protect their family, compared with 68.6% (95% CI, 65.2%-71.8%) of respondents without children. On logistic regression analysis, having children in the home remained an independent factor associated with reasons for gun ownership. Gun owners with children were more likely than those without children to feel that guns make them feel more valuable to their family (23.5% [95% CI, 18.9%-28.8%] vs 17.0% [95% CI, 15.0%-19.2%]). Among those with children, 35.2% (95% CI, 30.0%-40.8%) believed gun laws should be more strict compared with 40.7% (95% CI, 38.1%- 43.3%) of those without children. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that acknowledging parental motivations for gun ownership is a pivotal component of educational efforts toward firearm injury prevention. These findings can guide clinicians to engage in effective individual counseling and community level efforts to reduce pediatric gun injuries.

K-12 School Shootings: Implications for Policy, Prevention, and Child Well-Being.

Schools should be considered safe spaces for children; children need to feel secure in order to grow and learn. This article argues that when a school shooting occurs, the harm goes beyond those who are injured or killed, because the presumption of security is shattered, and the mental and emotional health of the students is threatened. There are many interventions for preventing these attacks at the school, state, and federal levels. This article explores evidence behind some of these interventions and describes the delicate balance in implementing interventions without introducing undue stress and anxiety into a child's everyday life.

Seeking justice rooted in truth, reconciliation and forgiveness.

This paper presents an overview of the philosophy and implementation of restorative justice practices, the challenges and accomplishments of which we examine across the arc of the twentieth and emerging twenty-first century. Restorative justice, we argue, is both counterintuitive and pragmatic in its application. We examine truth and reconciliation hearings, intentional peace communities, and other paragons of the restorative justice model from a macroscopic perspective. A case study offers a microscopic lens to the conflict-ridden communities in Chicago, IL, ground zero for the epidemic of handgun violence in the U. S. We conclude with a discussion of what pragmatic hope restorative justice practices might offer to embattled landscapes which stretch from foreign lands to our own communities.

Assessment of Extreme Risk Protection Order Use in California From 2016 to 2019.

Importance: A total of 19 states and the District of Columbia now have extreme risk protection order (ERPO) or similar policies, and others are considering them; however, little research exists describing their use. Objective: To characterize early use of California's ERPO policy by providing the first aggregate, statewide description of ERPOs, individuals subject to them, and petitioners. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed 1076 respondents to ERPOs recorded in the California Department of Justice California Restraining and Protective Order System from 2016 to 2019. Descriptive analyses of orders issued between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019 in California were performed, and univariate Moran I was calculated to examine county-level spatial autocorrelation of the policy's use. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcomes included the characteristics of ERPO respondents (demographic characteristics), petitioners (law enforcement vs family or household members), and orders (type and service) as well as temporal and spatial variation in policy use during the first 4 years of implementation. Results: Of 1076 respondents during the study period, most were men (985 [91.5%]) and white individuals (637 [59.2%]), with a mean age of 41.8 years (range, 14 to 98 years). A law enforcement officer was the petitioner in 1038 cases (96.5%). The number of respondents increased during the study period from 70 in 2016 to 700 in 2019, and there was substantial county-level variation in ERPO use (ranging from 0 to 354 respondents), with significant spatial clustering in counts of ERPO respondents among neighboring counties (observed Moran I, 0.18, mean [SD] Moran I from reference distribution, -0.01 (0.05); z value, 3.58; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: This study, among the first to describe the early utilization of an ERPO or similar policy, found a substantial increase in the use of ERPOs in California from 2016 to 2019. These results could inform policy makers and other stakeholders involved in policy implementation and outreach in California and elsewhere. Similar studies in other states would be useful to understand variation.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Washington : A Statewide Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, 74% of homicides and 51% of suicides involve firearms. Using extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, petitioners can request restricting firearm access for individuals (known as "respondents") who pose a risk to themselves or others. OBJECTIVE: To characterize respondents and circumstances of ERPOs. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: State of Washington. PARTICIPANTS: All ERPO respondents during 8 December 2016 to 10 May 2019. MEASUREMENTS: Reason for filing the ERPO; characteristics of respondents; respondent's reported history of domestic violence perpetration, mental illness, substance misuse, and suicide ideation or attempt; number and type of firearms removed; and ERPO petition outcome (granted or not granted). RESULTS: The ERPOs were filed for concerns about harm to self (n = 67), harm to others (n = 86), or harm to both self and others (n = 84). Of all ERPOs, 87% were filed by law enforcement and 81% were granted. At least 1 firearm was removed from 64% of respondents, with a total of 641 firearms removed. The petitioner reported prior domestic violence perpetration by the respondent in 24% of cases, and a prior diagnosis of a mental health condition and substance misuse for the respondent in 40% and 47% of cases, respectively. Of all respondents, 62% had a history of suicidal ideation or attempt according to the petitioner. As part of the ERPO process, the court ordered mental health evaluation in 30% of cases. LIMITATION: Filing of the forms was inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Laws regarding ERPOs are a potential tool to help protect patients or family members from harming themselves or others by restricting firearm possession and purchase. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term effects of these laws and identify approaches to increase their use. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: State of Washington.

States' Rights, Gun Violence Litigation, and Tort Immunity.

The devastating toll of gun violence has given rise to hundreds of lawsuits seeking justice on behalf of victims and their families. A significant number of challenges against gun companies, however, are blocked by courts' broad reading of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) - a federal statute often interpreted to shield the gun industry from civil liability. This article reexamines PLCAA in light of the Supreme Court's recent federalism caselaw, which counsels courts to narrowly construe federal laws that could otherwise upset the balance of power between states and the federal government. Since PLCAA infringes on traditional areas of state authority, the Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence requires lower courts to interpret PLCAA narrowly, to not bar states from imposing negligence, nuisance, product liability, or other common law liability on gun companies. Reading PLCAA in line with federalism principles would preserve states' traditional authority over their civil justice laws, and enable gun violence victims, and their families, to hold gun companies responsible for wrongdoing.

Gun Violence in Court.

Litigation cannot solve a public health crisis. But litigation can be an effective complementary tool to regulation by increasing the salience of a public health issue, eliciting closely guarded information to move public opinion, and prompting legislative action. From tobacco to opioids, litigants have successfully turned to courts for monetary relief, to initiate systemic change, and to hold industry accountableFor years, litigators have been trying to push firearm suits into their own litigation moment. But litigation against the gun industry poses special challenges. Not only has the regulatory regime failed to prevent a public safety hazard, Congress has consistently underfunded and understaffed the relevant regulatory actors. And in 2005 it legislatively immunized the gun industry from suit with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).This paper surveys the field of litigation in response to gun violence, tracking the limited successes of victims and stakeholders suing the gun industry. We find that victories remain confined to individual actors and unlike high-impact public litigations in other areas, aggregate class actions and major public litigation led by state attorneys general are noticeably absent in the firearm context.

The Sydney Lindt café siege: The role of the consultant psychiatrist.

BACKGROUND: In December 2014, after a 16-hour siege of the Lindt café in Sydney, Iranian-born gunman Man Haron Monis shot dead a hostage precipitating the police action which broke the siege. OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews the demographic and other factual details of Monis as documented by the NSW Coroner's Inquest and critically analyses the published findings of the Coroner particularly in relation to the role of the psychiatrist who advised senior police and negotiators during the siege. RESULTS: At the time of the siege, there was no formal protocol that delineated the role of a psychiatrist in hostage negotiations. Despite the psychiatrist's credentials including his extensive experience with siege-hostage incidents and his counter-terrorist training, the Coroner was unfairly critical of the psychiatrist. CONCLUSION: The Coroner's censure of the psychiatrist was clearly prejudiced by hindsight bias. During the siege, the psychiatrist properly considered and evaluated all the available intelligence and other information known about the gunman. As the psychiatrist advised, Monis was a narcissist and the siege was not an Islamic State-inspired terrorist attack. Given that he announced he was armed with a bomb, Monis represented a 'credible threat' to the hostages. The psychiatrist's endorsement of the police strategy to 'contain and negotiate' was prudent in the circumstances. The Coroner's disparagement of the senior psychiatrist may have the unintended consequence that psychiatrists may be reluctant to assist in hostage-sieges or other critical incidents.