# data[].attributes.headline
Why is Justice Barrett's vote so crucial to the Gun Control Conversation?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is Justice Barrett's vote so crucial to the Gun Control Conversation?

# data[].attributes.body
President Trump elected Justice Amy Barret as one of the new Supreme court judges. Amy Barret does not want to make any changes for the Second Amendment but her vote can change the tide because the current judges are still deciding upon which way they would like to go.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For years, conservative justices have said the court disfavors the Second Amendment. Justice Amy Coney Barrett is likely to shift the balance, and a case to help her do so may be knocking.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's four most conservative justices to strike down coronavirus restrictions on religious services in New York last week, her first decisive vote. Credit... Oliver Contreras for The New York Times

WASHINGTON - Justice Amy Coney Barrett is just starting to make her mark at the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, her vote flipped the court's approach to restrictions on attendance at religious services during the coronavirus pandemic. While Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was alive, the court had allowed such limits, in California and Nevada, by 5 to 4 votes. After Justice Barrett succeeded her, she joined the court's four most conservative justices to strike down restrictions in New York.

Those same four justices are now on high alert for a promising case in which to expand Second Amendment rights, having written repeatedly and emphatically about the court's failure to take gun rights seriously. Justice Barrett seems poised to supply the fifth vote they need.

A Second Amendment case decided last week by the federal appeals court in Philadelphia is a promising candidate for Supreme Court review, not least because it presents an issue on which Justice Barrett has already taken a stand.

It concerns Lisa M. Folajtar, who would like to buy a gun. But she is a felon, having pleaded guilty to tax evasion, which means under federal law she may not possess firearms.

She sued, arguing that the law violated her Second Amendment rights. A divided three-judge panel of appeals court rejected her challenge, saying that committing a serious crime has consequences. It can lead to losing the right to vote, to serve on a jury - or to have a gun.

The ruling adopted the position of the Trump Justice Department. "The right to keep and bear arms is analogous to other civic rights that have historically been subject to forfeiture by individuals convicted of crimes, including the right to vote, the right to serve on a jury and the right to hold public office," lawyers for Attorney General William P. Barr told the appeals court.

In dissent, Judge Stephanos Bibas, a former law professor appointed to the court by President Trump (and the author of a scathing decision on Friday rejecting the president's challenge to the election results in Pennsylvania), wrote that the framers of the Constitution would not have allowed lawmakers to bar felons convicted of nonviolent crimes from owning guns.

"Lisa Folajtar asks us to treat her as an equal member of society," he wrote. "Though her tax-fraud conviction affects some of her privileges, it does not change her right to keep and bear arms."

Judge Bibas wrote that his analysis had drawn heavily from a dissent last year in a similar case concerning a man convicted of mail fraud.

That dissent was written by Justice Barrett when she was a judge on the federal appeals court in Chicago. The law forbidding people with felony convictions from owning guns, she wrote, should not apply when the crimes in question were nonviolent.

"History does not support the proposition that felons lose their Second Amendment rights solely because of their status as felons," she wrote. "But it does support the proposition that the state can take the right to bear arms away from a category of people that it deems dangerous."

Voting and jury service are different, she wrote, because those are "rights that depend on civic virtue."

The Supreme Court has not issued a major Second Amendment decision since a pair of rulings, in 2008 and 2010, established an individual right for law-abiding citizens to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. Beyond that, the justices have said almost nothing about the scope of the right, and lower courts have sustained many kinds of gun control laws.

Before Justice Barrett's arrival, the court's four most conservative justices had repeatedly written that the court should return to the subject of the Second Amendment

In 2017, for instance, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, wrote that they had detected "a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

"For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous," Justice Thomas wrote. "But the framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense."

In June, however, the court turned down some 10 appeals in Second Amendment cases. Since it takes only four votes to grant review, there is good reason to think that the court's conservative wing was unsure it could secure Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s vote.

Justice Barrett's arrival changes the calculus. Should Ms. Folajtar appeal to the Supreme Court, it is a good bet that Justice Barrett will find her arguments persuasive.

Still, the 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, would seem to create a hurdle for Ms. Folajtar. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, included an important limiting passage, the price of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's crucial fifth vote.

"Nothing in our opinion," Justice Scalia wrote, "should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons."

Last year, the court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York City gun-control ordinance. But it ended up dismissing the case in April, after the city repealed the ordinance.

Dissenting from that ruling, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. noted that the Heller decision "recognized that history supported the constitutionality of some laws limiting the right to possess a firearm," including ones "prohibiting possession by felons and other dangerous individuals."

That last phrase, which did not appear in the earlier decision, may be significant. In shifting the focus to dangerousness, it seemed to open the door to the position taken by Justice Barrett.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Justice Barrett's Vote Could Tilt the Supreme Court on Gun Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For years, conservative justices have said the court disfavors the Second Amendment. Justice Amy Coney Barrett is likely to shift the balance, and a case to help her do so may be knocking. WASHINGTON - Justice Amy Coney Barrett is just starting to make her mark at the Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains the different gun laws and who can pass them. The article also gives you in detail information about the pros and cons of these different laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Who can possess a firearm   in  New Hampshire ?

There is no minimum  age in New Hampshire for possessing a firearm. However, only a parent, grandparent or legal guardian can transfer a gun to someone under 18.

Under federal law, you can't buy a gun if you:

Have been convicted of certain drug crimes

Are the subject of a domestic violence protective order , including those issued for threatening an intimate partner or for stalking

Are in the United States illegally

Are deemed a "mental defective " or have been involuntarily committed

Mental illness and gun ownership

Federal law prohibits the possession of a firearm by anyone who "has been adjudicated as mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." However, New Hampshire keeps mental health records confidential and does not therefore provide them to the national database used to perform background checks.

There have been attempts in recent years to institute a "red flag law" allowing law enforcement to confiscate weapons from those who may pose a threat to themselves or others .

Learn more about red flag bills

Buying a gun in New Hampshire

If you want to buy a firearm in New Hampshire, you must show ID .

N onresidents can't buy long guns unless they are eligible to purchase them in their home state.  Pistols and r evolvers cannot be purchased across state lines. This is prohibited at the f ederal level .

Those who buy a gun have a responsibility to keep it somewhere safe. You may be charged with "negligent storage of firearms" if a child gains access to your firearm and uses i t i n "a reckless or threatening manner."

Concealed carry in NH

Anyone who can legally possess a firearm can carry it both openly  or  concealed without a permit , unless  they are  in a location where guns are specifically restricted.

Background checks and waiting periods

New Hampshire does not require a waiting period before finalizing a gun purchase. In accordance with federal law, licensed firearm dealers must conduct a background check on anyone who purchases a gun. For handgun sales, these checks are conducted by the New Hampshire Department of Safety. Long gun sale background checks are conducted by the FBI. Both checks are usually conducted on the spot but can take anywhere from an hour up to several days .

In New Hampshire, a private individual may sell a gun to another New Hampshire resident , so long as the seller either personally knows the buyer (and thereby has no reason to believe the person is prohibited possessing a gun), or the buyer has a license to carry in New Hampshire. Since private sales sometimes happen at gun shows, those who disagree with this practice often refer to it as the " gun show loophole ."

Where  are guns prohibited

You cannot discharge a firearm within 300 feet of a permanently occupied dwelling without the landowner's permission.

Assault weapons

Bump Stocks

Bump stocks are a type of gun stock that make a semi-automatic rifle shoot rapidly, more like an automatic weapon. As of March 2019, the federal government has banned bump stocks for most civilians.  This change was made in the wake of the much-publicized Las Vegas shooting in 2017 , in which the shooter u sed a bump stock.

"NH should pass stricter gun control laws."

At 10.54 per 100,000, the United States has a much higher rate of gun-related deaths than other industrialized countries with stricter firearms regulations, such as Japan (0.06), Germany (1.01), Australia (0.93) and the United Kingdom (0.23).

A gun at home is 22 times more likely to be used in the murder of a family member, an unintentional shooting, or a suicide than for purposes of self-defense.

The Second Amendment was intended to permit a militia, such as the National Guard, to carry arms, not every citizen.

Universal background check requirements and waiting periods could help deter or prevent some crimes.

Mass shootings are most often done with legally owned weapons. Therefore, imposing stricter gun laws would likely reduce the number and severity of mass shootings.

"NH gun control laws are fine, or should be loosened."

In the past two decades the homicide rate in the United States has consistenly decreased, even as firearm ownership has increased.

Criminals do not follow laws, so regulations on firearms only hurt legal gun owners.

Some scholars have argued that gun control laws have no significant impact on violent crime or suicide rates.

The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to gun ownership for the purposes of self-defense.

The possibility that the potential victim could possess a gun acts as a deterrent to criminals.

Guns don't kill, people do. Efforts to reduce violence should focus on the causes of criminal activity, not the tools used to perpetrate it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Who can possess a firearm   in  New Hampshire ?  There is no minimum  age in New Hampshire for possessing a firearm.

# data[].attributes.body
Such confiscation would be impossible, as a practical matter, in the United States, and if it were attempted, the consequences would be catastrophic. Gun owners would not give up their guns without a fight. They would riot and protest and do whatever they could to get their guns back. We don't need gun control.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A person who is "engaged in the business, but who does not have an FFL, is guilty of a felony every time he sells a firearm. Currently, the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System law generally matches the constitutional standard set forth in Heller. It applies to all sales by persons who are engaged in the business (FFLs) and does not apply to transfers by persons who are not engaged in the business.

After the 2012 Sandy Hook murders, Obama ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to inform FFLs about how they can perform a background check for private persons who would like such a check. On a voluntary basis, that order was legitimate, but it would be constitutionally dubious to mandate it.

As a practical matter, criminals who are selling guns to each other (which is illegal and subject to severe mandatory sentencing) are not going to comply with a background‐​check mandate. It would be irrelevant to them. Ordinary law‐​abiding citizens who sell guns to each other might be willing to take the gun to a firearm store for a voluntary check, provided that the check is not subject to a special fee, that there is no registration, and that the check is convenient and expeditious. The new ATF regulations for private‐​party sales comply with two of those three conditions; however, the regulations do require that dealers keep permanent records on the buyer and one of the make, model, and serial number of the gun, just as if the dealer were selling a firearm out of his own inventory. The dealer‐​based system of registration, created by the Gun Control Act of 1968, avoids the dangers of a central registry of guns, but it does have risks: a government that wanted to confiscate guns could simply harvest the dealer sales records.

Proposals concerning universal background checks have fairly strong support in public opinion polls, but those polls are premised on the idea that the check would be applied to the actual sale of firearms. To the contrary, in proposed legislation, the requirement for government authorization (via a background check and paperwork identical to buying a gun) would apply to far more than gun sales. The proposals apply to all firearms "transfers." A "transfer" might be showing a new gun to a friend and letting him handle the gun for a few minutes.

For example, Senate bill S.649 (2013), introduced by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), goes far beyond controlling the actual sale of firearms. Consider a case in which a woman buys a common revolver at age 25, and keeps it her entire life. She never sells the gun. But over her lifetime, she may engage in dozens of firearms transfers:

The woman loans the gun to her sister, who takes it on a camping trip for the weekend.

While the woman is out of town on a business trip for two weeks, she gives the gun to her brother.

If the woman lives on a farm, she allows all of her relatives on the farm to take the gun into the fields for pest and predator control.

If the woman is in the Army Reserve, and she is called up for an overseas deployment, she gives the gun to her brother‐​in‐​law for temporary safe‐​keeping. When she goes out of town on vacation every year, she also temporarily gives her gun to her brother‐​in‐​law.

One time, when a neighbor is being threatened by an abusive ex‐​boyfriend who is a stalker, the woman lets the neighbor borrow the gun for several days, until the neighbor can buy her own gun.

If the woman becomes a firearms safety instructor, she may teach classes at office parks, school buildings, or gun stores. Following the standard curriculum of gun safety classes, such as those required by the National Rifle Association, the woman will bring some unloaded guns to a classroom, and under her supervision, students will learn the first steps in handling the gun, including how to load and unload the gun (using inert dummy ammunition). During the class, the firearms will be transferred dozens of times, as students practice how to hand a gun to someone safely.

Under S. 649, every one of the above activities would be a felony, punished the same as if the woman had knowingly sold the firearm to a convicted violent felon. Here is the pertinent provision: "It shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter."

This is not "gun control" in the constitutionally legitimate sense - reasonable laws that protect public safety without interfering with the responsible ownership and use of firearms. To the contrary, such grotesquely overbroad laws have the effect of turning almost every gun owner into a felon by outlawing the ordinary, innocent, and safety‐​enhancing ways in which firearms in the United States are "transferred" millions of times every year.

While S. 649 has a few exceptions to the ban on transfers, not one of them apply to the situations described above:

One can make a "bona‐​fide gift" (but not a three‐​hour loan) to certain close family members, not including aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, in‐​laws, or civil union partners.

One can let someone else borrow a gun for up to seven days, but only within the curtilage of one's house. Not on the open space one owns, and even a spouse cannot borrow a gun for eight days.

One can leave a firearm to another in a written will. But on one's deathbed, it would be unlawful to leave a gun to one's best friend.

One can share a gun at a shooting range (but only if the shooting range is owned by a corporation, not on public lands, and not at a shooting range on one's own property).

One can share a gun at a shooting match, but only if the match is operated by a non‐​profit corporation or the government - not a match organized by the National Rifle Association, and not a match organized by a firearms manufacturer.

One can share a gun while out hunting in the field, but back at the hunting camp, it would be illegal to clean someone else's gun.

Even if there was no Second Amendment, the arbitrary rules of the various exemptions would make Senator Reid's bill of very dubious constitutionality. As interpreted by the courts, due process requires that all laws have a legitimate purpose and at least a rational connection to that purpose.

High‐​Capacity Magazines

A magazine is the part of the firearm where the ammunition is stored. Sometimes the magazine is part of the firearm itself, as in tube magazines underneath barrels. This is the norm for shotguns. For many rifles, and almost all handguns that use magazines, the magazine is detachable. A detachable magazine is a rectangular or curved box, made of metal or plastic. At the bottom of the box is a spring, which pushes a new round of ammunition into the firing chamber after the empty shell from the previous round has been ejected. The caliber of the gun does not determine what size magazine can be used. Any gun that uses a detachable magazine can accommodate a detachable magazine of any size. So, for example, a gun with a detachable magazine holding 10 rounds can also accommodate a magazine that holds 20 rounds.

The 1994 federal ban on assault weapons included a ban on large magazines. As indicated by the bill's title (the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act), that ban was predicated on the idea that recreational firearm use is legitimate, but other firearms use is not. Yet for target‐​shooting competitions, there are many events that use magazines holding more than 10 rounds. For hunting, about half the states limit the magazine size that a hunter may carry in the field, but half do not. In some scenarios, such as deer hunting, a hunter will rarely get off more than two shots at a particular animal. In other situations, particularly pest control, the use of 11- to 30‐​round magazines is typical because the hunter will be firing multiple shots. Such pests include the hunting of packs of feral hogs and wild animals, such as prairie dogs and coyotes.

More generally, the rifle that might be used to shoot only one or two rounds at a deer might be needed for self‐​defense against a bear or against a criminal attack. In 2012, Arizona repealed its limitations on magazine capacity for hunters precisely because of the possible need for self‐​defense against unexpected encounters with cartel gangs in the southern part of the state. In that region, it is well known that drug traffickers and human traffickers use the same wild and lonely lands that hunters do.

For the firearms that are most often chosen for self‐​defense, the claim that any magazine holding more than 10 (or 7) rounds is "high capacity" or "large" is incorrect. The term "high‐​capacity magazine" might have a legitimate meaning when it refers to a magazine that extends far beyond that intended for the gun's optimal operation. For example, although a semiautomatic handgun can accept a 40‐​round magazine, such a magazine typically extends far beneath the gun grip, and it is therefore impractical to use with a concealed‐​carry permit. For most handguns, a 40‐​round magazine could be called "high‐​capacity."

The persons who have the most need for actual high‐​capacity magazines are those who would have great difficulty changing a magazine - such as elderly persons or persons with disabilities. For an able‐​bodied person, changing a magazine only takes a few seconds. Typically a gun's magazine‐​release button is near the trigger. To change a magazine, the person holding the gun presses the magazine‐​release button with a thumb or finger. The magazine instantly drops to the floor. While one hand was pushing the magazine‐​release button, the other hand can grab a fresh magazine (which might be carried in a special holster on a belt) and bring it toward the gun. The moment the old magazine drops out, a fresh one is inserted.

Although one can quickly change magazines, persons being attacked by criminals will typically prefer not to spend even a few seconds for a magazine change. The stress of being attacked usually impedes fine motor skills, making it much more difficult to insert the magazine. That is why many semiautomatic handguns come factory‐​standard with a magazine of 11 to 20 rounds. Thus, a ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds means a ban on some of the most common and most useful magazines purchased for purposes of recreational target practice and self‐​defense.

Why might someone need a factory‐​standard 17‐​round magazine for a common 9mm handgun? As noted, standard‐​capacity magazines can be very useful for self‐​defense. This is especially true if a defender faces multiple attackers, an attacker is wearing heavy clothing or body armor, an attacker who is turbo‐​charged by methamphetamine or cocaine, or an attacker who poses an active threat from behind cover. In stressful circumstances, police as well as civilians often miss when firing a handgun even at close range, so having the extra rounds can be crucial.

It is important to consider the advantages a criminal has over his intended victims. The criminal has the element of surprise, whereas the victim is the one surprised. The criminal can decide at leisure what weaponry he will bring; whereas the victim must respond with what's at hand at the moment of attack. A criminal can bring several guns, or lots of magazines; whereas the victim will usually have on hand, at most, a single defensive gun with only as much ammunition as is in that gun. Thus, legislation confining law‐​abiding victims to magazines of 10 or fewer magnifies the criminal's advantage over his intended victim.

One fact that proves the usefulness of standard‐​capacity magazines is that most police officers use them. An officer typically carries a semiautomatic handgun on a belt holster as his primary sidearm. The magazine capacity is usually in the 11 to 20 range. Likewise, the long gun carried in police patrol cars is quite often an AR-15 rifle with a 30‐​round magazine.

Violent confrontations are unpredictable; for example, if a person is fighting against one or two perpetrators, he may not know if there is an additional, hidden attacker. Thus, defensive gun users need to keep a reserve of ammunition. So even though armed defenders do not usually fire more than 10 shots, reducing reserve capacity (e.g., from a standard 17‐​round magazine to a 10‐​round substitute) will reduce the number of defensive shots. Fewer shots fired at the attacker reduces the risk of injury to the attacker, and thereby raises the risk of injury to the victim.

Would a Magazine Ban Be Beneficial?

The National Institute of Justice study found that the 1994-2004 federal ban on the manufacture of large magazines had no discernible benefit because the existing supply of such magazines was so vast.

The types of criminals most likely to get into shootouts with the police or with other criminals are precisely those who are very aware of what is available on the black market. Although gun prohibitionists often link assault weapons to gang violence associated with the illegal drug trade, they miss the irony of their argument. They are, in effect, claiming that the very gangs operating the black market in drugs will somehow be restricted from acquiring high‐​capacity magazines by legislation limiting the manufacture and sale of such magazines. The claim - at least as it pertains to career criminals - is ludicrous. If gangsters can obtain all the cocaine they want, despite a century of prohibition, they will be able to obtain 15‐​round magazines.

Advocates of a ban on standard‐​capacity magazines assert that while the attacker is changing the magazine, an intended victim might be able to subdue him - yet they cannot point to a single instance where this actually happened. They cite a trilogy of events that happened in Tucson, Arizona (2011), Aurora, Colorado (2012), and Newtown, Connecticut (2013). In fact, all of those events involved gun jams, not magazine changes. At Newtown, the criminal changed magazines seven times and no one escaped, but when his rifle jammed, people did escape. Clearing a gun jam takes much longer than changing a magazine. Fixing a gun jam involves all the steps of a magazine change (remove the empty magazine and insert a new one) plus all the intermediate steps of doing whatever is necessary to fix the jam. Similarly, in the Luby's cafeteria murders (24 dead), the perpetrator replaced magazines multiple times. In the Virginia Tech murders (32 dead), the perpetrator changed magazines 17 times.

Advocates of banning magazines larger than 10 rounds call them "high capacity." Again, this is incorrect. The standard manufacturer‐​supplied magazines for many handguns have capacities up to 20 rounds; for rifles, standard magazine capacity is up to 30. This has been true for decades. Indeed, magazines holding more than 10 rounds constitute 47 percent of all magazines sold in the United States in the last quarter century. There are tens of millions of such magazines. A law that was really about high‐​capacity magazines would cover the after‐​market magazines of 75 or 100 rounds, which have minuscule market share, and which are not standard for any firearm. As of 2011, there were approximately 332 million firearms in the United States not in military hands. With the rough estimate that one‐​third of guns are handguns, most gun owners owning at least two magazines per gun, and 47 percent of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, the number of large magazines in the United States is at least in the tens of millions. When one also takes into account rifle magazines, the number of American magazines holding more than 10 rounds could be more than 100 million. That in itself is sufficient, according to the Supreme Court's Heller precedent, to make the ban unconstitutional.

Assault Weapons

Before examining the details of a ban, it should be noted at the outset that the term "assault weapons" is a political gimmick designed to foster confusion. The so‐​called "assault weapons" are not machine guns. They do not fire automatically. They fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed, just like every other ordinary firearm. They are not more powerful than other firearms. To the contrary, their ammunition is typically intermediate in power, less powerful than ammunition that is made for big‐​game hunting.

The Difference between Automatic and Semiautomatic

The automatic firearm was invented in 1884 by Hiram Maxim. The early Maxim guns were heavy and bulky and required a two‐​man crew to operate. In 1943, a new type of automatic was invented, the "assault rifle." The assault rifle is light enough for a soldier to carry for long periods of time. Soon, the assault rifle became a very common infantry weapon. Some examples include the U.S. Army M-16, the Soviet AK-47, and the Swiss militia SIG SG 550. The AK-47 can be found throughout the Third World, but there are only a few hundred in the United States, mostly belonging to firearms museums and wealthy collectors.

The definition of "assault rifle" is supplied by the Defense Intelligence Agency: "short, compact, selective‐​fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between a submachine gun and rifle cartridges." If you use the term "assault rifle," persons who are knowledgeable about firearms will know precisely what kinds of guns you are referring to. The definition of assault rifle has never changed because the definition describes particular objects in the real world - just like the definitions of "table" or "umbrella." In contrast, the definition of "assault weapon" has never been stable. The phrase is an epithet. It has been applied to double‐​barreled shotguns, to single‐​shot guns (guns whose ammunition capacity is only a single round), and to many other ordinary handguns, shotguns, and rifles.

While the definitions of what to ban keep changing, a few things remain consistent: the definitions do not cover automatic firearms, such as genuine assault rifles. The definitions do not ban guns based on how fast they fire or how powerful they are. Instead, the definitions are based on the name of a gun, or on whether a firearm has certain accessories or components, such as a bayonet lug, or a grip in the "wrong" place. Most, but not all, of the guns which have been labeled assault weapons are semiautomatics. Many people who are unfamiliar with firearms think that a gun that is semiautomatic must be essentially the same as an automatic. That is incorrect.

Semiautomatic firearms were invented in the 1890s and have been common in the United States ever since. Today, 82 percent of new American handguns are semiautomatics. A large share of rifles and shotguns are also semiautomatics. Among the most popular semiautomatic firearms are the Colt 1911 pistol (named for the year it was invented, and still considered one of the best self‐​defense handguns); the Ruger 10/22 rifle (which fires the low‐​powered .22 Long Rifle cartridge, popular for small‐​game hunting or for target shooting at distances less than a hundred yards); the Remington 1100 shotgun (very popular for bird hunting and home defense); and the AR-15 rifle (popular for hunting game no larger than deer, for target shooting, and for home defense). All of these guns were invented in the mid‐​1960s or earlier. All of them have, at various times, been characterized as assault weapons.

Unlike an automatic firearm, a semiautomatic fires only one round of ammunition when the trigger is pressed. (A "round" is one unit of ammunition. For a rifle or handgun, a round has one bullet. For a shotgun, a single round contains multiple pellets of shot.) In some other countries, a semiautomatic is usually called a "self‐​loading" gun. This accurately describes what makes the gun "semi"-automatic. When the gun is fired, the projectile travels from the firing chamber, down the barrel, and out the muzzle. Left behind in the firing chamber is the now‐​empty case or shell that contained the bullet (or shot) and the gunpowder. In a semiautomatic, some of the energy from firing is used to eject the empty shell and load a fresh round of ammunition into the firing chamber. The gun is then ready to shoot again - when the user is ready to press the trigger.

In some other types of firearms, the user must perform some action in order to eject the empty shell and load the next round. This could be moving a bolt back and forth (bolt‐​action rifles); moving a lever down and then up (lever‐​action rifles); or pulling and then pushing a pump or slide (pump‐​action and slide‐​action rifles and shotguns). A revolver (the second‐​most popular type of handgun) does not require the user to take any additional action in order to fire the next round.

The semiautomatic has two principle advantages over lever‐​action, bolt‐​action, slide‐​action, and pump‐​action guns. First, many hunters prefer it because the semiautomatic mechanism allows a faster second shot. The difference may be less than a second, but for a hunter, that can make all the difference. Second, the semiautomatic's use of gunpowder energy to eject the empty case and to load the next round substantially reduces how much recoil is felt by the shooter. This makes the gun much more comfortable to shoot, especially for beginners, or for persons without substantial upper‐​body strength. The reduced recoil makes the gun easier to keep on target for the next shot, which is important for hunting and target shooting, and very important for self‐​defense.

Semiautomatics also have a disadvantage. They are more prone to mechanical jams than are simpler, older types of firearms, such as revolvers. Contrary to the hype of anti‐​gun advocates and less‐​responsible journalists, there is no rate‐​of‐​fire difference between a so‐​called assault semiautomatic gun and any other semiautomatic gun.

Are Semiautomatics More Powerful Than Other Guns?

Many of the ever‐​changing group of guns which are labeled assault weapons use detachable magazines (a box with an internal spring) to hold their ammunition. This is a characteristic shared by many other firearms, including many non‐​semiautomatic rifles (particularly bolt actions), and by the large majority of handguns. Whatever the merits of restricting magazine size (discussed above), the ammunition capacity of a firearm depends on the size of the detachable magazine. If one wants to control magazine size, there is no point in banning certain guns that can use detachable magazines, while not banning other guns that also use detachable magazines.

Bans by Name

Rather than banning guns based on rate of fire, or firepower, the various legislative attempts to define an assault weapon have taken two approaches: banning guns by name and banning guns according to certain features.

After a quarter century of legislative attempts to define assault weapon, the flagship bill for prohibitionists, drafted by Senator Feinstein, still relies on banning more than 120 guns by name. That in itself demonstrates that assault weapons prohibitions are not about guns that are more dangerous than other guns. After all, if a named gun really has physical characteristics that make it more dangerous than other guns, then legislators ought to be able to describe those characteristics and ban guns (regardless of name) that have those supposedly dangerous characteristics.

Bans by Features

An alternative approach to defining assault weapon has been to prohibit guns that have one or more items from a list of features. The problem here is that the listed features have nothing to do with a gun's rate of fire, its ammunition capacity, or its firepower. Here are some of the various items that Senator Feinstein finds objectionable:

Bayonet lugs. A bayonet lug gives a gun a military appearance, but it has nothing to do with criminal activity. Drive‐​by bayonetings are not a problem in this country.

Attachments for rocket launchers and grenade launchers. Since nobody makes guns for the civilian market that have such features, these bans would affect nothing.

Folding or telescoping stocks. Telescoping stocks on long guns are very popular because they allow shooters to adjust the gun to their own size and build, to different types of clothing, or to their shooting position. Folding stocks also make a rifle or shotgun much easier to carry in a backpack while hunting or camping. Even with a folding stock, the long gun is still far larger, and less concealable, than a handgun.

Grips.The Feinstein bill outlaws any long gun that has a grip, or anything which can function as a grip. In the Rambo movie series, Sylvester Stallone would spray fire from his hip with an automatic rifle, which had a pistol grip. In real life, a grip helps a responsible shooter stabilize a semiautomatic or other rifle while holding the stock against his shoulder. It is particularly useful in hunting where the shooter will not have sandbags or a benchrest, or perhaps anything else, on which to rest the forward part of the rifle. Accurate hunting is humane hunting. And should a long gun be needed for self‐​defense, accuracy can save the victim's life.

Some gun‐​control advocates seem to oppose firearms accuracy. On the PBS Newshour, Josh Horwitz, an employee of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said that grips should be banned because they prevent "muzzle rise" and thereby allow the shooter to stay on target. Well, yes, a grip does help stabilize the gun so that a second shot (whether at a deer or a violent attacker) will go where the first shot went. Horowitz seemed to be saying that guns that are easy to fire accurately should be banned. Guns that are more accurate are better for all the constitutionally protected uses of firearms, including self‐​defense, hunting, and target shooting. To single them out for prohibition is misguided.

Barrel covers. For long guns that do not have a forward grip, the user may stabilize the firearm by holding the barrel with his nondominant hand. A barrel cover or shroud protects the user's hand. When a gun is fired repeatedly, the barrel can get very hot. This is not an issue in deer hunting (where no more than a few shots will be fired in a day), but it is a problem with other kinds of hunting, and it is a particular problem in target shooting, where dozens or hundreds of shots will be fired in a single session.

Threaded barrel for safety attachments. Threading at the end of a gun barrel can be used to attach muzzle brakes or sound suppressors.

When a round is fired through a gun barrel, the recoil from the shot will move the barrel off target, especially for a second, follow‐​up shot. Muzzle brakes reduce recoil and keep the gun on target. It is difficult to see how something that makes a gun more accurate makes it so bad that it must be banned. A threaded barrel can also be used to attach a sound suppressor. Suppressors are legal in the U.S. - although buying one requires the same severe process as buying a machine gun. They are sometimes - inaccurately - called silencers. Suppressors typically reduce a gunshot's noise by about 15-20 decibels, which still leaves the gunshot louder than a chainsaw.

James Bond and some other movies give the false impression that a gun with a silencer is nearly silent and is only used by professional assassins. Actually, sound suppressors are typically used by people who want to protect their hearing or to reduce the noise heard by people living close to a shooting range. Many firearms instructors choose suppressors in order to help new shooters avoid the "flinch" that many novices display because of shooting noise.

The bans on guns with grips, folding stocks, barrel covers, or threads focus exclusively on the relatively minor ways in which a feature might help a criminal and ignore the feature's utility for sports and self‐​defense. The reason that manufacturers include those features on firearms is because millions of law‐​abiding gun owners want them for entirely legitimate purposes.

Would a Ban be Beneficial?

In order to pass the 1994 federal ban, proponents had to accept two legislative amendments. First, the ban would sunset after 10 years. Second, the Department of Justice would commission a study of the ban's effectiveness. The study would then provide members of Congress with information to help them decide whether to renew the ban or let it expire.

What about state‐​level assault‐​weapons bans? As noted above, Connecticut has had such a ban since 1993. Economist John Lott examined data for the five states with assault‐​weapon bans in his 2003 book, The Bias against Guns. Controlling for sociological variables, and testing the five states with bans against the other 45 states, he found no evidence of a reduction in crime. To the contrary, the bans were associated with increased crime in some categories. Whether the adverse effect Lott reports is a phantom of statistical analyses or random factors, the state‐​level data do not support the claim that assault weapons bans reduced crime rates. The National Institute of Justice study, discussed above, also examined state and local laws, and found no statistically discernable reductions in crime or its severity.

Regarding mass murders in particular, in 2012 Mother Jones examined 62 mass shootings since 1982, finding that 35 of the 142 guns used were designated as assault weapons. The Mother Jones study has been criticized for its selective and inconsistent decisions about which incidents to include. To take one example of an incident not involving an "assault weapon" that Mother Jones did not include, a man murdered 22 people at a Texas cafeteria in 1991 using a pair of ordinary semiautomatic pistols. He reloaded the guns several times. Tragically, in order to comply with laws against concealed carry, Suzanna Hupp left her own handgun in her car before entering that cafeteria, rendering her defenseless as the attacker murdered her parents and many others, in circumstances when she had a clear, close shot at him while he was distracted. And recall that the most deadly U.S. firearms mass murder perpetrated by a single individual was at Virginia Tech University, where the perpetrator used a pair of ordinary handguns, not assault weapons, to murder 35 people.

Confiscation and Registration

The most extreme form of gun control is confiscation. The Brady Campaign, and other gun‐​control groups, supported a 1976 Massachusetts ballot initiative for handgun confiscation. Although the proposal was rejected by 69 percent of the voters, confiscation continues to surface whenever gun‐​control advocates believe that it might be politically viable. For example, after the December 2012 murders in Newtown, Connecticut, Governor Dannel Malloy (D-CT) created the Sandy Hook Commission to make recommendations to enhance public safety. That commission released its final report in March 2015. Recommendation No. 10 would ban the possession of " any firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading." If such a ban were in effect all across the country, it would cover tens of millions of guns already in the homes of gun owners. To avoid the criminal penalty for possession, gun owners would have to surrender their arms to the government. Malloy hedged his response to the commission's recommendation. He said there was no appetite in the legislature for such drastic proposals "at the moment."

Gun Controls in Great Britain

President Obama and other gun control supporters have urged the United States to follow the policies of Great Britain and Australia, with mass confiscation of firearms. Australia confiscated all semiautomatic rifles, all semiautomatic shotguns, all pump‐​action shotguns, and all handguns above .38 caliber. Great Britain confiscated virtually all handguns, and all semiautomatic and pump‐​action rifles above .22 caliber. Even nonlethal defensive arms, such as pepper sprays or stun guns, are prohibited. The President's advocacy of confiscation helps explain why constitutional‐​rights advocates resist the registration of guns and gun owners, since registration lists have been used for confiscation.

Great Britain's confiscation of semiautomatic rifles took place in the wake of a mass murder in 1987. The culprit murdered 16 people and wounded 14 more in an eight‐​hour killing spree in the small town of Hungerford. Because it took a long time for anyone with a gun to arrive to stop the killer, the rate of fire from his particular guns was irrelevant. However, the British government chose to ban all semiautomatic rifles, since those had been some of the guns used by the killer.

Later, in 1998, after a known pedophile used a handgun to murder kindergarten children in Dunblane, Scotland, Parliament banned handguns. As a result, the Gun Control Network, a prohibition advocacy group, enthused that "British controls over firearms are regarded as 'the gold standard' in many countries." According to the Gun Control Network's spokesperson Gill Marshall‐​Andrews, "the fact that we have a gold standard is something to be proud of."

Did the British ban reduce mass murders? Before and after the bans, such crimes were so rare in Great Britain that it is hard to say definitively. Great Britain is in some ways safer, and in more ways more dangerous, than the United States. The UK homicide rate tends to fluctuate between one and two per 100,000 population. The U.S. homicide rate is 4.7 (as of 2011). The difference is not entirely due to guns, since the non‐​gun U.S. homicide rate is consistently higher than the UK total homicide rate.

The actual rates of criminal homicides in the two countries are somewhat closer than the above numbers would indicate. The U.S. rate is based on initial reports of homicides, and includes self‐​defense killings (about 7-12 percent of the total); so the U.S. rate would be about half a point lower if only criminal homicides were counted.

The statistics from England and Wales are based only on final dispositions, so an unsolved murder, or a murder that is pleaded down to a lesser offense, is not counted as a homicide. In addition, multiple murders are counted as only a single homicide for Scottish statistics. Even so, it is true that the U.S. homicide rate is higher than in the UK

In other categories of major violent crime, the UK is generally worse than the United States. In 2010, the assault rate per 100,000 population was 250.9 in the United States; 664.4 in England and Wales; 1449.7 in Scotland; and 80.6 in Northern Ireland.

For robbery, the results are closer, although the UK as a whole is still worse. The U.S rate was 115.3; England and Wales had 137.9; Northern Ireland 75.0; and Scotland 49.

Burglary rates were: United States 695.9; England and Wales, 946.1; Northern Ireland, 658.7; and Scotland, 479.1. So the overall UK burglary rate is significantly worse (considering that England and Wales contain 89 percent of the UK population, and the burglary rate is more than one‐​third higher than in the United States). More important, the manner in which burglaries take place in the UK is much worse.

English burglars prefer occupied homes because there will be wallets and purses with cash, which do not have to be fenced at a discount. British criminals have little risk of confronting a victim who possesses a firearm. Even the small percentage of British homeowners who have a legal gun would not be able to unlock the firearm from one safe, and then unlock the ammunition from another safe (as required by law), in time to use the gun against a criminal intruder. It should hardly be surprising, then, that Britain has a much higher rate of home‐​invasion burglaries than does the United States.

If success is measured by a reduction in handgun crime, then the Great Britain handgun confiscation was a failure. A July 2001 study from King's College London's Centre for Defense Studies found that handgun‐​related crime increased by nearly 40 percent in the two years following implementation of the handgun ban.

Great Britain was a much safer society in the early 20th century, when the nation had virtually no gun crime and virtually no gun control. Now it has much more of both.

Registration and Confiscation in the United States

In California, in 2013, only strenuous opposition finally led to the defeat of a proposed law, AB 174, which, before it was amended to cover a different subject, would have confiscated grandfathered assault weapons that had previously been registered in compliance with California state law.

Precisely because of concerns about confiscation, many Americans will not obey laws that would retroactively require them to register their guns. During the first phase of the assault‐​weapon panic, in 1989 and 1990, several states and cities enacted bans and allowed grandfathered owners to keep the guns legally by registering them. The vast majority of gun owners refused to register.

Yet when Canada tried to impose universal gun registration the result was a fiasco. The registration system cost a hundred times more than promised. Non‐​compliance was at least 50 percent, and the registration system proved almost entirely useless in fighting crime. In 2012, the Canadian government repealed the registration law and ordered all the registration records destroyed.

As for registration in the United States, the largest, most detailed comparative study of the effects of various firearms laws was conducted by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, and published in his 1991 book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. His book was awarded the highest honor by the American Society of Criminology, the Michael Hindelang Book Award, "for the greatest contribution to criminology in a three‐​year period." The Kleck study examined many years of crime data for the 75 largest cities in the United States. The study controlled for numerous variables such as poverty, race, and arrest rates. Kleck's study found no crime‐​reducing benefits from gun registration. In 2013, at the request of the Canadian Department of Justice, Kleck prepared a report that synthesized all prior research in the United States and Canada. He found registration to be of no benefit in reducing any type of firearms misuse.

What Can Be Done?

These favorable trends have taken place during a period when American gun ownership has soared. In 1964, when the homicide rate was about the same as it is now, per capita gun ownership was only .45 - fewer than one gun per two Americans. In 1982, there were about .77 guns per capita (about 3 guns per 4 Americans). By 1994, that had risen to .91 (9 guns per 10 Americans). By 2010, there were slightly more guns in America than Americans.

It would be inaccurate to claim that the entire reason that crime has declined in recent decades is because Americans have so many more guns, but it would be accurate to say that having more guns is not associated with more crime. If anything, just the opposite is true. Policies that seek to stigmatize or criminalize gun ownership per se (such as a universal background check law that criminalizes loaning a gun to one's sister, as discussed above) have little to do with public safety, except to undermine it.

We must also recognize that mass murderers often spend months planning their crimes. These are generally not crimes of passion that are committed in the heat of the moment. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris spent several months plotting their 1999 attack at Columbine High School. Dylann Roof allegedly plotted for six months prior to his attack in Charleston, South Carolina. Adam Lanza attempted to destroy the evidence of his plan to attack Sandy Hook students, but investigators uncovered the extensive research he had done on mass murders in the months leading up to that incident.

There are, of course, competing interests involved when debating the curtailment of individual rights based on mental‐​health screening. Any involuntary commitment must respect the Constitution, which, as applied by the Supreme Court, requires proof by "clear and convincing evidence" that the individual is a danger to himself or others in order for the person to be committed. Notwithstanding some similar traits among mass shooters - young, male, alienated, intelligent - it's important to remember that those traits are present in a great many young men who never harm anyone. It is also important not to stigmatize mental health treatment to such an extent that at‐​risk people, along with their relatives and friends, refuse to seek help for fear of the consequences.

These are nontrivial considerations that must be weighed before any expansion of the civil commitment system. Better voluntary mental health treatment is expensive in the short run, but pays for itself in the long run through reduced criminal justice and imprisonment costs, not to mention reduced costs to victims.

Unfortunately, misguided laws in recent years have made certain buildings vulnerable to sociopaths who, like Adam Lanza, aim to kill as many people as possible before there is effective resistance. By state law, Sandy Hook Elementary School was a gun‐​free zone: the state forbids carrying guns at schools, even by responsible adults who have been issued a permit based on the government's determination that they have the good character and training to safely carry a firearm throughout the state. Thus, law‐​abiding adults were prohibited from protecting the children in their care, while an armed criminal could enter the school easily.

Over the last 25 years, there have been at least 10 cases in which armed persons have stopped incipient mass murder: a Shoney's restaurant in Alabama (1991); Pearl High School in Mississippi (1997); a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania (1998); Appalachian School of Law in Virginia (2002); Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City (2007); New Life Church in Colorado (2007); Players Bar and Grill in Nevada (2008); Sullivan Central High School in Tennessee (2010); Clackamas Mall in Oregon (2012; three days before Newtown); Mayan Palace Theater in San Antonio (2012; three days after Newtown); and Sister Marie Lenahan Wellness Center in Darby, Pennsylvania (2014).

Gun prohibitionists insist that armed teachers, or even armed school guards, won't make a difference, but in the real world, they have - even at the Columbine shooting, where the armed school resource officer (a sheriff's deputy, in that case) was in the parking lot when the first shots were fired. The officer fired two long‐​distance shots and drove the killers off the school patio, saving the lives of some of the wounded students there. Unfortunately, however, the officer failed to pursue the killers into the building - perhaps due to a now‐​abandoned law enforcement doctrine of waiting for the SWAT team to arrive.

The contrasts are striking and tragic. The attempted massacre at New Life Church in Colorado Springs was stopped by a private citizen with a gun; the massacre at South Carolina's Emanuel AME wasn't. The mass murder at Pearl High School was stopped by a private citizen (the vice principal) with a gun; the mass murder at Newtown's elementary school wasn't stopped until the police arrived. The shootings at Appalachian Law School ended when private citizens (armed students) subdued the gunman; the shootings at Virginia Tech continued until the police arrived. More licensed‐​carry laws that reduce the number of pretend gun‐​free zones are an effective way to save lives.

Conclusion

Firearms in the hands of law‐​abiding citizens enhance public safety. Firearms in the wrong hands endanger everyone. Responsible firearms policies focus on thwarting dangerous people and do not attempt to infringe the constitutional rights of good persons. Background checks on firearms sales can be improved by including more records on persons who have been adjudicated to be so severely mentally ill that they are a genuine threat.

Extending federal gun control to private intrastate sales between individuals - and to firearms loans among friends and family - is constitutionally dubious, and imposes severe burdens for no practical benefit. Such a system is futile without registration of all firearms. Gun owners have justifiably resisted gun registration because it has facilitated gun confiscation in the United States and other nations.

It is false to claim that common firearms are "assault weapons" and it is false to claim that common magazines are high capacity. Outlawing standard firearms and their magazines deprives innocent victims of the arms that may be best‐​suited for their personal defense. Sensational crimes are often used to push poorly conceived laws which criminalize peaceable gun owners. The most effective paths to preventing mass shootings are improving access to mental care and removing impediments to lawful self‐​defense and defense of others.

Notes

1. The author wishes to thank Ari Armstrong for his research assistance in the preparation of this paper. Quoted in Peter Baker, "After Charleston Shooting, a Sense at the White House of Horror, Loss, and Resolve," New York Times, June 18, 2015.

2. Quoted in ibid.

3. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, "Charleston Families Join Brady Campaign and Members of Congress to Call for a Vote on Expanding Brady Background Checks," July 8, 2015, http://www.bradycampaign.org/press-room/charleston-families-join-brady-campaign-and-members-of-congress-to-call-for-a-vote-on.

4. Alex Seitz‐​Wald, "Clinton Calls for New Gun Control Laws, Outflanking Sanders," June 20, 2015, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-calls-new-gun-control-laws-outflanking-sanders.

5. See Richard Perez‐​Pena, "Problems Plague System to Check Gun Buyers," New York Times, July 27, 2015; Michael S. Schmidt, "Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, FBI Says," New York Times, July 10, 2015.

6. James B. Jacobs, The Eternal Criminal Record (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), p. 149.

7. Quoted in Ed Komenda and Jackie Valley, "What Now? Three Mass Shootings in a Week Leave Communities Wondering How to React," Las Vegas Sun, June 15, 2014.

9. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).

14. Glenn Kessler, "Obama's Continued Use of the Claim that 40 Percent of Gun Sales Lack Background Checks," Washington Post, April 2, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html. Note also Glenn Kessler, "Clinton's Claim that 40 Percent of Guns Are Sold at Gun Shows and Over the Internet," Washington Post, October 16, 2015.

15. 18 U.S.C. § 922(d).

17. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(5), 923(g)(1)(A).

18. 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1).

19. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(5), 923(g)(1)(A).

20. See Adam Edelman, "NY SAFE Act Weapons Registry Numbers Released," New York Daily News, June 23, 2015. (Low assault‐​weapon registration stats suggest low compliance with SAFE Act gun control law.) Canadian gun registration is discussed in more detail below.

21. 521 U.S. 898, 938 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring).

22. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-27 (2008).

23. 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(21)(D).

24. 18 U.S.C. §§922(a), 924.

25. 18 U.S.C. § 922(t).

26. "Recordkeeping and Background Check Procedures for Facilitation of Private Party Firearms Transfers," ATF Proc. 2013-1 (March 15, 2013), https://www.atf.gov/file/4961/download.

27. Mandatory sentences are specified in 18 U.S.C. § 924.

29. Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013, S. 649, Section 122: Firearm Transfers, 113th Cong. (2013).

30. Ibid.

31. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (law against consensual sex by same‐​sex adults had no legitimate purpose).

32. "Los Angeles Passes Law Banning Large‐​Capacity Gun Magazines," New York Times, July 30, 2015.

33. The New York law originally banned magazines over 7 rounds. But in March 2013, the New York legislature "suspended" the 7‐​round limit, replacing it with a 10‐​round limit, since there are many guns for which no magazines of 7 rounds or fewer are manufactured. The law still forbids the purchase of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and requires that magazines that hold more than 7 rounds not be loaded with more than 7 except at target ranges.

34. A clip is also a device for holding ammunition. A clip is basically a rectangular strip that holds the base of several rounds of ammunition in a line. Clips were most typically used for some rifles from the 1940s. Some people use the word "clip" incorrectly when what they mean is "magazine."

35. Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 103-322, Title XI, Subtitle A, §110105(2), 108 Stat. 1996, 2000 (1994) (Sunset Sept. 2004).

36. State of Arizona, House of Representatives, House Bill 2640 (2012), amending Ariz. Rev. Stats. § 17-231.

39. See Bob Parker, "How the North Hollywood Shootout Changed Patrol Arsenals," February 28, 2012, http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2012/02/how-the-north-hollywood-shootout-changed-patrol-rifles.aspx.

40. "The failure to reduce LCM [large capacity magazines] use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre‐​ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports," the 2004 study speculates. The study notes that millions of assault weapons and large‐​capacity magazines were "manufactured prior to the ban's effective date." Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth, "An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003: Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice," University of Pennsylvania (June 2004), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf, p. 2.

43. Alicia A. Caldwell, "James Holmes' Gun Jammed During Aurora Attack, Official Says," Associated Press, July 22, 2012.

45. Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 25 F. Supp. 3d 1267, 1275 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (noting evidence that "magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds make up approximately 47 percent of all magazines owned").

46. The figure is based on over half a century of manufacturing, import, and export data recorded by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The table with the annual figures is available online in chapter 12 of Nicholas J. Johnson, David B. Kopel, George Mocsary, and Michael P. O'Shea, Firearms Law and the Second Amendment (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2013). Chapters 12-15 are available at www.firearmsregulation.org. An earlier version of this table is available in the amicus brief of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, et al., in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), pp. App. 13-15, http://davekopel.org/Briefs/07-290bsacreprintIntlLawEnforcementEduc&Trainers.pdf. However, the numbers in the brief are too low because they omitted firearms imports in certain years.

47. Julie Calhoun, "S.C. Senator Pushing to Strengthen Gun Laws," WRDW​.com, August 18, 2015, http://www.wrdw.com/home/headlines/South-Carolina-Senator-pushing-to-strengthen-gun-laws-322143841.html.

49. Some machine guns are, or may be, set to fire a certain number of rounds with one pull of the trigger. Tri‐​burst (three rounds) is common for many new machine guns.

51. 18 U.S.C. § 922(o); "National Firearms Act (NFA) - Machine Guns," http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-machine-guns.html.

52. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Selected Findings: Guns Used in Crime 4 (July 1995), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF (there are 240,000 registered machineguns); Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gryter, 1997), p. 108 (half of registered machine guns are privately owned) (citing BATF, Statistics Listing of Registered Weapons, April 19, 1989). Because the manufacture of new machine guns for sale to ordinary citizens (as opposed to government agents) was banned on May 19, 1986, and because pre‐​ban machine guns are therefore very valuable (so owners have every incentive to keep them in working order), the 1995 data about private machine guns are likely still valid (there are about 120,000 legally registered ones).

53. Dolf L. Goldsmith, The Devil's Paintbrush: Sir Hiram Maxim's Gun, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Collector Grade Publications, 1993).

54. See David B. Kopel, Guns: Who Should Have Them? (New York: Prometheus Books, 1995), p. 162; Defense Intelligence Agency, Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide - Eurasian Communist Countries (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1988), p. 105.

55. State of Florida, Commission on Assault Weapons, Report of May 18, 1990 (summary of March 18, 1990 meeting), p. 3. (Commission member stating that California "chose those weapons from a book of pictures.")

56. For example, the 1989 California statute outlawed the Heckler and Koch "H-93," the "SIG PE-57," and the Gilbert Equipment Company "Striker 12," none of which have ever existed. Also banned was the "Encom CM-55," which is not a semiautomatic; it is a single‐​shot gun with a total ammunition capacity of one.

57. Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, S. 150, 113th Congress (2013).

58. In the 97th session of the Illinois General Assembly, see House Bill 0815, House Bill 263, and Amendment #1 to Senate Bill 2899 (amendment by Rep. Eddie Acevedo).

59. Colorado Senate Bill 197 (by Sen. President John Morse); David Kopel, Testimony on SB 197 before Senate Judiciary Committee, March 4, 2013, http://youtu.be/FpzbS7XgfB8.

60. See the 2011 manufacturing data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, https://www.atf.gov/file/4806/download.

61. The energy that is used to turn the cylinder of the revolver (bringing the next round into place, ready to fire) comes from the user pulling the trigger. (The trigger is mechanically linked to the cylinder, and a trigger pull performs the actions of cocking the hammer and firing a round.) Thus, the revolver does not use gunpowder energy in order to load the next round. So even though a revolver is comparable to a semiautomatic handgun in that each pull of the trigger chambers and fires one round, a revolver is a not a semiautomatic.

62. The formula is: KE = ½ MV ². Or in words: the kinetic energy is equal to one‐​half of the mass times the square of the velocity.

63. Rifles have longer barrels than handguns, and rifle cartridges generally burn more gunpowder. Thus, a bullet shot from a rifle spends more time traveling through the barrel than does a bullet shot from a handgun. As a result, the rifle bullet receives a longer, more powerful push from the expanding cloud of gunpowder in the barrel, so rifles generally deliver more kinetic energy than do handguns. As for shotguns, the mass of shot pellets is often heavier than any single rifle or handgun bullet, so shotguns have very high kinetic energy at short ranges. But their kinetic energy drops rapidly because the round pellets quickly lose speed because of air friction. Rifle and handgun bullets are far more aerodynamic than are shotgun pellets.

64. If the gun's caliber is .17, that means the gun's barrel is 17/100 of an inch wide and can accommodate a bullet that is very slightly smaller. So a .38 caliber bullet is bigger than a .17 caliber bullet, and a .45 caliber bullet is bigger than either of them. (Calibers can also be expressed metrically: 9 mm is nearly the same as .357 inches, which is slightly smaller than a .38 bullet). The bullet's size depends on its width (caliber) and on its length, so one .45 caliber bullet might be longer, and hence heavier, than another .45 caliber bullet. For any particular gun in any particular caliber, there are a variety of rounds available, some of which have more gunpowder than others. More gunpowder makes the bullet fly straighter for longer distances (especially important in many types of hunting or target shooting); less gunpowder reduces recoil and makes the gun more comfortable to shoot and more controllable for many people.

65. Measured at the muzzle. Kinetic energy begins declining as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel because air friction progressively reduces velocity.

66. Frank C. Barnes, Cartridges of the World: A Complete and Illustrated Reference for Over 1500 Cartridges (Iola, WI: Krause Publications, 2014).

67. Many gun manufacturers produce a single model of firearm in several different calibers. While .223 is the most common caliber for the AR-15, larger calibers are available, and some of those would be suitable for bigger game. The claim that so‐​called assault weapons are high‐​velocity is true only in the trivial sense that most guns which are called assault weapons are rifles - and rifles are generally higher velocity than handguns or shot​guns​.As for the handguns which are sometimes mislabeled as "assault weapons," they are lower velocity, with less powerful bullets, than the most powerful handguns. The most powerful handgun calibers, such as the .44 Magnum and .454 Casull (often carried by hikers and hunters for self‐​defense against bears), are mostly revolvers.

70. The types of hunting that might include enough shots in a short period to heat the barrel include pest and predator control (e.g., prairie dogs on a ranch), and wild boars.

71. A chainsaw's decibel (dB) output measured at one meter away is 105 db. See Tontechnik‐​Rechner, "Decibel Table - SPL - Loudness Comparison Chart," http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TableOfSoundPressureLevels.htm. The use of a suppressor takes the dB level for a firearm down to the high 120s. That makes "silenced" firearms about 20 dB louder than a chainsaw. The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear, so a sound 20 dB more sounds four times louder. See Steve Claridge, "How Loud Is Too Loud: Decibel Levels of Common Sounds," Hearing Aid Know, http://www.hearingaidknow.com/2007/03/how-loud-is-too-loud-decibel-levels-of-common-sounds/. For additional background, see Robert Silvers, "Results," 2005, http://www.silencertalk.com/results.htm. See also, David B. Kopel, "Silencers, gun," in Forensic Science, ed. Ayn Embar‐​Seddon and Allan D. Pass (Salem, MA: Salem Press, 2008); Alan C. Paulson, Silencer: History and Performance: Sporting and Tactical Silencers (Boulder, CO: Paladin Press, 1996).

72. Conn. Gen. Stats. § 53-202a-o; 1993, P.A. 93-306.

74. Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth, "An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003: Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice," University of Pennsylvania, June 2004, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf, p. 3.

75. Ibid., p. 2.

76. Ibid.

77. Writing for Salon, Alex Seitz‐​Wald objects to calling the 1994 ban a failure simply because the 2004 study showed no evidence that it did any good. Seitz‐​Wald believes that the ban showed "some encouraging signs" since, for example, some criminals substituted non‐​assault guns for assault guns. Interviewing researcher Christopher Koper, Seitz‐​Wald found that he agrees with speculation that if the 1994 bans had stayed in effect, they might have eventually done some good, although there was as of yet no evidence to support this hope. Alex Seitz‐​Wald, "Fact Check: LaPierre's Big Fib," Salon, January 30, 2013, http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/wayne_lapierre_hopes_you_dont_read_that_study_he_mentioned.

78. John Lott, The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2003), p. 207. Looking at the raw crime data, Lott observes:

The comparison group here is the forty‐​five states that did not adopt a ban. For both murder and robbery rates, the states adopting assault weapons bans were experiencing a relatively faster drop in violent crimes prior to the ban and a relatively faster increase in violent crimes after it. For rapes and aggravated assaults, the trends before and after the law seem essentially unchanged.

Based on the crime data, Lott concludes that it is "hard to argue that ... banning assault weapons produced any noticeable benefit in terms of lower crime rates." In statistical analyses that seek to control for other possible factors in the fluctuations of crime rates, Lott finds that, if anything, the state‐​level assault weapons bans had an adverse effect on crime rates:

Presumably if assault weapons are to be used in any particular crimes, they will be used for murder and robbery, but the data appears more supportive of an adverse effect of an assault weapons ban on murder and robbery rates ... , with both crime rates rising after the passage of the bans.... Murder and robbery rates started off relatively high in the states that eventually adopted a ban, but the gap disappears by the time the ban is adopted. Only after instituting the ban do crime rates head back up. There is a very statistically significant change in murder and rape rate trends before and after the adoption of the ban.... It is very difficult to observe any systematic impact of the ban on rape and aggravated assault rates. [See p. 214.]

See also Mark Gius, "An Examination of the Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws and Assault Weapons Ban on State‐​level Murder Rates," Applied Economic Letters 21, no. 4 (November 26, 2013): 265-67.

79. Mark Follman, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan, "A Guide to Mass Shootings in America," Mother Jones, December 15, 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map; see also Mark Follman, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan, "US Mass Shootings, 1982-2012: Data from Mother Jones' Investigation," Mother Jones, December 28, 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data. Mother Jones missed more than 40 percent of the cases which met its selection criteria. Nor did it consistently follow its purported selection criteria. See James Alan Fox, "Mass Shootings not Trending," Boston Globe, January 23, 2013, http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2013/01/mass_shootings_not_trending.html; Grant Duwe, "The Truth about Mass Public Shootings," Rea​son​.com, October 28, 2014, http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/28/the-truth-about-mass-public-shootings.

80. Thomas C. Hayes, "Gunman Kills 22 and Himself in Texas Cafeteria," New York Times, October 17, 1991, http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/17/us/gunman-kills-22-and-himself-in-texas-cafeteria.html; David B. Kopel, "Hennard, George," in Notorious Lives (Salem, MA: Salem Press, 2007).

81. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, From Luby's to the Legislature (San Antonio: Privateer Publications, 2009).

82. The killer used a .22‐​caliber Walther P22 handgun and a 9mm Glock 19 handgun. Reed Williams and Shawna Morrison, "Police: No Motive Found," Roanoke Times, April 26, 2007.

83. At the time, the Brady Campaign called itself the National Council to Control Handguns.

84. In The Atlantic, senior editor Robert Wright said that the assault weapons issue is a "red herring." As he points out, "there's no clear and simple definition of an assault weapon, and this fact has in the past led to incoherent regulation." Wright's preferred legislation would make it illegal to sell or possess a firearm - rifle or pistol - that can hold more than six bullets, and "illegal to sell or possess a firearm with a detachable magazine." In other words, Wright wants to ban the very large majority of handguns, and most rifles. This plainly violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And even if there were no right to arms, the enforcement problems would be worse than the American experience with alcohol prohibition. Wright uses the example of the Newtown murders, noting that the criminal carried a rifle and two handguns and that he shot about 12 rounds before reaching the students. Wright supposes, "At that point, as he headed for the classrooms, he'd have six more rapid‐​fire bullets left, after which he'd have to reload his guns bullet by bullet." Robert Wright, "A Gun Control Law That Would Actually Work," The Atlantic, December 17, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/a-gun-control-law-that-would-actually-work/266342.But in a mass‐​murder scenario, a criminal would by no means be limited to three guns; he could easily carry many revolvers (or six‐​round semiautomatics). Like semiautomatics, double‐​action revolvers fire one round with each pull of the trigger. Besides that, revolvers can quickly be reloaded with speed loaders. The user does not have to put the fresh rounds into the cylinder one at a time.For more on the effective firing rates of revolvers and other types of guns, see Kopel, Guns: Who Should Have Them? pp. 164-65.

85. Final Report of the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, presented to Dannel P. Malloy, State of Connecticut, March 6, 2015, pp. 67-68.

86. Quoted in "No Appetite for More Gun Control in Conn., Governor Says," Associated Press, March 6, 2015, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/no-appetite-gun-control-conn-governor-article-1.2140449.

87. "We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours - Great Britain, Australia - countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it." Barack Obama, presidential statement, October 1, 2015, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/01/statement-president-shootings-umpqua-community-college-roseburg-oregon.

89. House of Commons, Home Affairs, Second Report, "Controls over Firearms," Session 1999-2000, April 6, 2000, at ¶22, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/9502.htm.

90. UN Data, "Intentional Homicide, Number, and Rate per 100,000 People," http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3A1 (1.6. in 1995, rising to 2.1 in 2002, falling to 1.2 in 2009).

91. Gary Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), p. 114.

93. The assault, robbery, and burglary statistics are from the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/data.html. (For historical reasons, these three jurisdictions within the UK often keep separate crime statistics. In terms of population, England and Wales has about 56 million people, Northern Ireland fewer than two million, and Scotland about five million. Thus, England and Wales have about 90 percent of the UK population.) See "England and Wales Population Rises 3.7m in 10 years," The Guardian (London), July 16, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/16/england-wales-population-rises; Scotland: The Official Gateway to Scotland, "Population of Scotland," http://www.scotland.org/about-scotland/the-scottish-people/population-of-scotland.

94. British Crime Survey, supplementary tables for 2010-2011, Table 1.8 (for 2010/11), http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/nature-burglary; David B. Kopel, "Lawyers, Guns, and Burglars," Arizona Law Review 43 (2001): 345, 347, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2594535.

95. Kopel, "Lawyers, Guns, and Burglars," pp. 354-55.

96. By the late 20th century, Great Britain had one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the Western World. Only 4 percent of British households would admit gun ownership to a telephone pollster. David B. Kopel and Joseph Olson, "All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England, and Some Lessons for America," Hamline Law Review 22 (1999): 399, 427, http://ssrn.com/abstract=149029.

97. "Illegal Firearms in the United Kingdom," Centre for Defense Studies, King's College London, Working Paper 1, July 2, 2001, p. 7.

98. Philip Johnston, "World's Toughest Laws Will Help to Keep Weapons off the Streets," The Telegraph, November 2, 1996.

99. "Illegal Firearms in the United Kingdom," Centre for Defense Studies, King's College London, Working Paper 4, July 2, 2001, p. 15.

100. Joyce Lee Malcolm, "The Soft‐​on‐​Crime Roots of British Disorder," Wall Street Journal, August 16, 2011 (citing Telegraph reports on government statistics from October 2009), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576502613435380574.html.

103. Currently codified at N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 10-304; formerly § 436-6.9, enacted by Local Law 106/1967 § 1.

104. N.Y.C. Administrative Code, § 10-301(16).

105. "Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson," National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action, January 27, 2000, http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2000/firearms-registration-new-york-city%60s.aspx?s=New+York+1991&ps= (Jeremy Travis, N.Y. Police Department deputy commissioner of legal matters, quoted in New York Daily News: " The department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned.")

106. Kopel, Guns: Who Should Have Them? p. 186; Seth Mydans, "California Ends Year with Rush to Comply with Firearms Law," New York Times, January 2, 1991 (up to 20,000 persons registered grandfathered assault weapons by the California deadline of December 31, 1990, out of an estimated pool of 300,000); and Carl Ingram, "Few Takers for Assault Gun Grace Period," Washington Times, February 17, 1992 (46,000 California assault weapons registered out of an estimated pool of between 200,000 and 600,000).

107. Pete Shields, an early president of the Brady Campaign, explained in 1977: "The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." Quoted in Richard Harris, "A Reporter at Large: Handguns," New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p. 58. (At the time, Shields' group was called the National Council to Control Handguns. It later changed its named to Handgun Control, Inc., and then changed again to "Brady Campaign.")

108. Stephen P. Halbrook, "Congress Interprets the Second Amendment: Declarations by a Co‐​Equal Branch on the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Tennessee Law Review 62 (1995): 597, 623-26.In December 1940, Congress passed the Property Requisition Act to allow the military to seize property (with compensation) for national defense needs. The Act expressly forbade the seizure or registration of citizens' firearms. The House Committee on Military Affairs explained that the language to protect the Second Amendment was added "in view of the fact that certain totalitarian and dictatorial nations are now engaged in the wholesale destruction of personal rights and liberties. H.R. Rep. No. 1120, at 2 (1941), 77th Congress, 1st sess. In a floor debate, Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall (R-NY) stated: "Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the Ogpu, and the Cheka" Cong. Rec. 87 (1941): 6811. Rep. Dewey Short (R-MO) pointed out that "The method employed by Communists in every country that has been overthrown has been to disarm the populace ..." Cong. Rec. 87 (1941): 7100. Lyle Boren, an Oklahoma Democrat, cited Trotsky and Hitler as executors of the kinds of gun control that must always be resisted in America. Cong. Rec. 87 (1941): 7101​.In 1986, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act became law. It forbids the creation of a federal registry of guns or gun owners. See 18 U.S. Code § 926(a). When Congress set up the National Instant Check System in 1994 it required that once a check was completed, the record of an approved sale should be destroyed. See 18 U.S. Code § 922(t)(2)(C). The Clinton administration did not obey this requirement, but the Bush administration did. See David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Instant Check, Permanent Record," National Review Online, August 10, 2000, http://davekopel.org/NRO/2000/Instant-Check-Permanent-Record.htm.

109. By executive fiat, President Obama unilaterally imposed federal registration on anyone who buys two or more semiautomatic rifles within a one‐​week period in the four southwest border states. "Acting Director Announces Demand Letters for Multiple Sales of Specific Long Guns in Four Border States," Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, December 20, 2010, Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection, 75 Fed. Reg. 79,021 (Dec. 17, 2010). ATF began issuing demand letters for gun registration in July 2011.

110. 41st Parliament, 1st Session, Bill C-19, "Ending the Long‐​gun Registry Act," (Royal Assent received April 5, 2012), http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=5188309; and Gary A. Mauser, "Misfire: Firearm Registration in Canada," Public Policy Sources, No. 48, Fraser Institute Occasional Paper (Vancouver, BC), 2001.

111. See David B. Kopel, The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy (Washington: Cato Institute, 1992), pp. 238-40.

113. Kleck, Point Blank, p. 420, Table 10.4.

114. Gary Kleck, "Expert Report on Canadian Long Gun Registration Law" (expert opinion presented to Canadian Department of Justice, September 27, 2013).

115. Ransom Stephens, "How Much Safer Is It to Fly Than Drive?" Exam​in​er​.com, January 24, 2011, http://www.examiner.com/article/how-much-safer-is-it-to-fly-than-drive-really. See also Bruce Schneier, Schneier on Security (Indianapolis: Wiley, 2008); John Mueller, "A False Sense of Insecurity," Regulation (Fall 2004): 42-46; and Aaron Wildavsky, Searching for Safety (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1988).

116. According to the FBI, there were 37 mass shooting deaths per year, on average, between 2000 and 2013. J. Pete Blair and Katherine W. Schweit, "A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013," Texas State University and Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice (2014). According to the National Weather Service, there were 32 lightning‐​strike fatalities per year on average between 2006 and 2014. National Weather Service, "U.S. Lightning Deaths in 2015: 25," www.nws.noaa.gov/om/lightning/fatalities.shtml.

117. "Estimated Crime in United States - Total," U.S. Department of Justice, Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics, http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm.

118. Data available at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "About Underlying Cause of Death, 1999-2013," http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html. Agree to the terms of data, then under option 6 on the next screen, choose "Injury Intent and Mechanism." Then choose "Unintentional" for "Injury Intent" and choose "Firearm" for "Injury Mechanism." For persons of all ages, in 2013 there were 505 deaths by "accidental discharge of firearms." This compares to 35,369 deaths that were caused by motor vehicle accidents; 38,851 deaths by accidental poisoning and exposure to noxious substances; 30,208 deaths by falls; and 3,391 deaths by accidental drowning.Some of these successes can be attributed to changes in public policy, such as greater incarceration of violent criminals. Other successes have come from private initiatives, such the NRA's Eddie Eagle gun accident prevention program for children, or the National Shooting Sports Foundation's programs to give away free gun locks.

121. "Danbury State's Attorney Releases Additional Information on December 14, 2012, Incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School," State of Connecticut, Division of Criminal Justice, March 28, 2013, http://www.ct.gov/csao/cwp/view.asp?a=1801&Q=521714. ("The gun locker at 36 Yogananda St. was open when the police arrived. It was unlocked and there was no indication that it had been broken into.")

122. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979).

123. David B. Kopel and Clayton E. Cramer, "Reforming Mental Health Law to Protect Public Safety and Help the Severely Mentally Ill," Howard Law Journal 58 (forthcoming, 2015), http://​ssrn​.com/​a​b​s​t​r​a​c​t​=​2​5​64680.

124. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53a‐​217b (making such carry a Class D felony).

125. David B. Kopel, "Pretend 'Gun‐​free' School Zones: A Deadly Legal Fiction," Connecticut Law Review 42 (2009): 515, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1369783 (detailing Pearl High School, Edinboro, Appalachian School of Law, and New Life Church); Jeanne Assam, God, the Gunman, and Me (Denver: Jeane Assam Publishing, 2010); "Former Deputy Speaks On 2001 Santana High School Shooting," 10News​.com, March 2, 2011, http://www.10news.com/news/former-deputy-speaks-on-2001-santana-high-school-shooting (in Santee, an off‐​duty officer was present while dropping off his daughter at school; he called for backup, and with an arriving officer, cornered the killer in a bathroom, where the killer was reloading); Rain Smith, "Police Officers Kill Gunman at Sullivan Central," Times​News​.net, August 30th, 2010, http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9025899 (the school resource officer held the armed intruder at bay; he was shot after two more officers arrived on the scene); Rebecca Bessler, "Three Men Killed in Winnemucca Shooting on Sunday," KTVN Channel 2 News, May 25, 2008, http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8378732 (Players Bar and Grill); J. Neil Schulman, "A Massacre We Didn't Hear About," Los Angeles Times, January 1, 1992 (Shoney's); Mike Benner, "Clackamas Mall Shooter Faced Man with Concealed Weapon," KGW Television, December 17, 2012, http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html; and "Deputy Shoots Gunman at San Antonio Movie Theater Video," KOAI News, December 16, 2012, http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-sponsored-by-five-119078/terror-at-southwest-side-movie-theater-10644119/; Meg Wagner, "Pennsylvania Patient Who Allegedly Killed Caseworker, Shot Doctor Had 39 More Bullets, Intended Mass Shooting: DA," New York Daily News, July 25, 2014, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/penn-psychiatric-center-shooting-suspect-abusive-ex-wife-article-1.1880052. See also, Eugene Volokh, "Do Citizens (Not Police Officers) with Guns Ever Stop Mass Shootings?" Washington Post, October 3, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/.

126. See Massad Ayoob, "Arm Teachers to Stop School Shootings," Wall Street Journal, May 21, 1999.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A person who is "engaged in the business, but who does not have an FFL, is guilty of a felony every time he sells a firearm. Currently, the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System law generally matches the constitutional standard set forth in Heller.

# data[].attributes.body
For example, let’s consider the case of Ryan Gray, a felon who was recently arrested in Waterbury during a surprise inspection of his residence. Gray “was on parole for a variety of crimes, including illegal gun possession. Inside Gray’s bedroom closet, police found a loaded Walther PPK, .380-caliber handgun, along with a loaded Smith & Wesson .357-caliber revolver. Police also found a BB gun in the same closet” according to the Waterbury Republican-American.
At the time of his arrest he was on probation after serving prison time for a previous conviction of criminal gun possession. He was still able to get his hands on a gun. No matter how many laws are passed, if someone really wanted to get a gun, they would find a way,, even if it is illegal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the regularity of Punxatawny Phil emerging from his burrow on Groundhog Day, the state legislature in Hartford has begun a new session with yet more gun control legislation at the top of their "to-do" list. Never mind that Connecticut is near the top of the list with 89 gun-related laws already on the books.

Every time something bad happens, the knee-jerk reaction from certain legislators is to pass yet one more law so that "this will never happen again." This is a totally unrealistic approach to anything, as a perfect world filled with rainbows, lollipops and unicorns cannot be achieved through legislation.

For example, let's consider the case of Ryan Gray, a felon who was recently arrested in Waterbury during a surprise inspection of his residence. Gray "was on parole for a variety of crimes, including illegal gun possession. Inside Gray's bedroom closet, police found a loaded Walther PPK, .380-caliber handgun, along with a loaded Smith & Wesson .357-caliber revolver. Police also found a BB gun in the same closet" according to the Waterbury Republican-American.

At the time of his arrest he was on probation after serving prison time for a previous conviction of criminal gun possession. It's painfully obvious to most people that the numerous laws already on the books did nothing to prevent his arrest for violating existing gun laws - a second time. Yet, we have legislators who believe that yet another law will fix things like this.

Published articles and TV reports state that one law being considered during this legislative session will address the safe storage of firearms, yet another knee-jerk reaction to the death of young Ethan Song at a friend's home in Guilford. The State Attorney's Office investigation reports that the teens located the gun in a cardboard container in a closet; that the gun (and two others) had gun locks on them; that the gun was probably unloaded at the time it was found by the teens; that they located ammunition for the gun; and that mishandling of the firearm caused the death of Ethan.

Also, the "juveniles had gained access to the adult male's weapons and played with them on several occasions. It appears that the weapons were returned to their original location after each access and there is no evidence that the gun owner knew that the guns had been retrieved by the juveniles."

From my perspective, the root causes of this death are: a) a failure of parental responsibility to instill respect for other people's property, and, b) the failure of the teens involved to respect the property rights of others.

However, in spite of all of this information relating to the death of Song, lawmakers - led on by Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, no doubt - will push for some law to further restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners, which may even mandate the purchase of a specific type of container for safe firearm storage from people who have no right to be snooping around in someone's home to begin with.

And any law that gets passed will further infringe on the ability of the homeowner to be able to defend himself and his property in the event of a home invasion. After all, when an intruder comes through your door and your self defense weapon is inside a locked storage container; has a trigger lock on it; and the ammunition is, by law, stored in a separate locked container, the use of that gun for immediate self defense and protection of your property is totally denied to you.

In the case of Ryan Gray, Gov. Dannel Malloy's early release program obviously didn't work, and the multitude of Connecticut gun control laws already on the books didn't either, as criminals and certain other people do not give one hoot about gun laws. In the case of Ethan Song, no laws on earth can protect those who refuse to abide by the normal rules of society, which include respect for other people's property. Therefore, any new laws will only add another burden on the large majority of the citizens who are responsible gun owners. The last thing Connecticut needs are more gun control laws that don't work.
Craig Hoffman lives in Cheshire. CTViewpoints welcomes rebuttal or opposing views to this and all its commentaries. Read our guidelines and submit your commentary here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We don't need more gun laws that don't work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The state legislature in Hartford has begun a new session with yet more gun control legislation at the top of their "to-do" list. Never mind that Connecticut is near the top of the list with 89 gun-related laws already on the books.

# data[].attributes.body
The second big reason is laws do not stop criminals and terrorists. Those people who argue against gun control feel that laws do not reduce gun violence. They think that the handiness of illegal guns makes it easy to engage in crimes regardless of limited or no access to licensed firearms. A 2016 news article states, most crimes are performed by those with access to illegal guns, and legal gun owners do only a small section of those crimes.” In approximately eight out of ten cases, the perpetrator was not a permitted gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
American citizens own almost fifty-percent of the total number of guns globally, which is the highest number around the globe.
Gun ownership is a right permitted by the American Constitution under the Second Amendment. It states that "A well-regulated Local militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Recently, the debate on guns and gun control has been in the limelight and is a vast topic of discussion. In the past few months, students, journalists, media, and the general public have been writing gun control essay. Since the multiple shootings in the recent past, including two widespread mass shooting cases such as the one in Las Vegas and the one at the high school in Florida. Some people are opinionating that all guns should not be allowed in any case, get banned, and no one should have guns, and that will result in fewer homicides and mass shootings.

While on the other hand, some public members say that there should not be gun control because of the second amendment, self-defense, and safety. The Gun Control topic has been quite tense as there have been several protests and debates going around in the country's communities. Another opinion came by that the semi-automatic rifles should not be banned because they are used as protection. Having them banned will not change the number of gun deaths in the long run as semi-automatic rifles are only used in a small fraction of the total amount of homicides.

Although around 90 percent of students in high school find themselves relatively safe in their schools. Contrarily, a significant number of pupils are concerned about the possibility of a mass shooting in their school or community (nearly 60 percent are concerned, reasonably worried, or very concerned).

According to the national poll conducted by Hamilton College's Arthur Levitt Public Affairs Center, in conjunction with Knowledge Networks of high school seniors, 65 percent of students feel it would be effortless to obtain a gun. Let's read about the pros and cons of gun control latest law;

Supporting Viewpoints for Gun Control

Reducing Firearm-Related Death

One of the main reasons presented by defenders of gun control in the United States is a relatively simple one. Gun control laws eventually lessen deaths due to gun-related incidents. Between 1999 and 2013, there were around four and a 1/2 lacs gun-related deaths in the United States. Those were the leading cause of homicide-related deaths (66%) and the leading cause of suicide-related deaths (52.2%). Gun-related deaths were the 12th leading reason for overall deaths beating out liver disorders, deaths by fire, drowning, machinery accidents, and hypertension. The part that gun violence plays in so many life-losses and injuries every year is horrifying, especially when various studies have shown a large share of these deaths to be preventable with adequate gun control enactment.

Guarding Victims of Domestic Violence

Domestic brutality is an especially common problem in the U.S, especially for women. The mere presence of a firearm during a domestic dispute increases a woman's chance of being murdered by 500%. This statistic alone does not fully explain how many lives are lost in domestic violence incidents in the United States. It is especially so much more prevalent it is here than in other similarly wealthy and developed countries throughout the world.

According to the Journal of Trauma report in 2003, when compared with women in 23 other crowded high-income countries, women in the United States accounted for 86% of total firearm-related deaths. They were 11.4 times more likely to be sufferers of firearm-related killing.

After examining these statistics-and keeping in mind that 57% of mass firings involve domestic violence. Shockingly, 31 states allow adjudged stalkers to purchase firearms, and 41 states have no laws mandating convicted home abusers must surrender their firearms (Hemenway and Richardson, 2011).

Across the nation, lawmakers opposing enhanced gun control laws are turning a blind eye to a virtual pandemic of violence that women are facing at the hands of their stalkers and abusers. Through the implementation of more stringent requirements on gun ownership, especially regarding perpetrators of domestic brutality, countless lives will be protected. However, gun control not only serves to save thousands of people, but it also would severely diminish the significant societal costs associated with gun violence, especially at the high rate the United States currently has.

Objecting Perspectives for Gun Control

Right to Bear Arms

Perhaps the most popular of all discussions against expanding gun control and the changes in provided gun ownership that comes with it is the statement that the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms.

While this is not at face value questioned by proponents of gun control, the extent to which the public is allowed to arm themselves is heavily questioned. Supporters of the Second Amendment usually hold the belief that their right to own guns is absolute and includes all classes of weaponry and the ability to carry those weapons in public. While gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself, at the time of the enactment of our constitution, the country was in a far different place than it is today.

Having just successfully segregated from an oppressive government in England, a feat which militias formed by armed citizens played a vital role in accomplishing, the inclusion of

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

However, since then, firearms and the U.S itself has changed a lot. No longer are guns single-shot weapons with a long reload time, now semi-automatic rifles like those used in wartime disputes are available for purchase across the country. Plus, the availability of concealable firearms like handguns is a stark difference from the 18th and 19th-century weaponry. Regardless of how different societies and politics are today from the time of the United States' founding, many see no reason that the interpretation of the right to bear arms should change. If you have been charged with a gun crime, you need the help of Wolfe & Stec Law Firm.

Increased Secret Terrorism

The second big reason is laws do not stop criminals and terrorists. Those people who argue against gun control feel that laws do not reduce gun violence. They think that the handiness of illegal guns makes it easy to engage in crimes regardless of limited or no access to licensed firearms. A 2016 news article states, most crimes are performed by those with access to illegal guns, and legal gun owners do only a small section of those crimes." In approximately eight out of ten cases, the perpetrator was not a permitted gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else." (Ingraham)

CONCLUSION

So... That's a long debate to continue.

Cutting the debate short, guns have an undeniable place in American society. A big thanks to the Second Amendment, the American public feels they have the right to own rifles to defend themselves and their families. Those that support gun possession due so because they want to feel safe. They believe possession of firearms allows them to prevent and deter crime as well as promote a feeling of security.

Those that support gun control see gun crime increasing in the United States and feel lax gun laws are at its center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros & Cons of Gun Control Legislation in the United States - Global Brands Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
American citizens own almost fifty-percent of the total number of guns globally, which is the highest number around the globe. Gun ownership is a right permitted by the American Constitution under the Second Amendment. It states that "A well-regulated Local militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

# data[].attributes.body
An effort at gun control doesn’t change the root cause of the issue.
People commit acts of violence against other for a variety of reasons, but it is a core issue of value that we must look at as a society to begin fixing the issues of violence that occur. We must think that all human life and its potential is priceless for us to begin moving beyond where we are at. Most incidents of violence that involve a gun are self-defense actions.
People are four times more likely to use a gun for self-defense purposes than they are to commit a crime with the firearm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether you agree with the interpretation of the Second Amendment in the United States that private ownership of firearms is permitted or not, everyone can find common ground with their concerns about gun violence. The scale of this issue is enormous in the United States even though the overall rate of crime is on a 20-year downward trend in many communities.

The facts about gun violence are undeniable. More than 38,000 people died because of a gunshot wound in the U.S. in 2016. Roughly 60% of these fatalities are self-inflicted. Another 80,000 people survive after being shot each year as well.

Depending on how one defines a "mass shooting," the United States averaged one per day in 2016. Three of the deadliest events that qualify under any definition of this crime happened in 2016 and 2017.

Perhaps even more disturbingly, a woman in the United States is fatally shot by her partner once every 16 hours in the United States in an act of domestic violence.

There are many solutions being proposed on how to stop these violent acts from occurring. One of the options that is frequently discussed is the idea of gun control.

Here are the unbiased pros and cons of gun control to review as they pertain to the United States.

List of the Pros of Gun Control

1. By any definition of mass shooting used, most come from guns that were purchased legally.
In a study originally published by Mother Jones, over 75% of the incidents of mass shootings that took place over 30 years of research had the guns involved purchased legally in some way. The idea of gun control is simple here. If you take the ability to own weapons that are potentially dangerous from people who are likely to use them, then it offers the possibility of making society safer.

2. A majority of mass shootings start because of a domestic violence incident.
The Huffington Post discovered that 57% of the mass shootings that occurred from 2009 to 2015 in the United States happened when an attacker targeted a romantic partner or a family member. These incidents involved the deaths of at least four people happening inside or outside of the home. Leslie Morgan Steiner, author of Crazy Love, told The Trace this during a 2018 interview.

"One of the myths about domestic violence is that it's private, that it happens behind closed doors and we should just stay out of it. It's such an enormous community problem." Federal law prohibits convicted domestic abusers from gun ownership, but matching state laws do not exist.

3. Homes with guns stored in them (even safely) increases the risk of a violent incident.
Research published by the New England Journal of Medicine found that the risk of a homicide occurring in a home is 40 times higher when there is a gun stored in it when compared to households that do not own a gun. Suicides are 90 times more likely to happen in homes where a firearm is present.

Linda Dahlberg found in her 2004 study that locking up the gun as a way to protect people does not impact these risks either. There is an increased risk of a violent incident happening no matter how safely the guns are stored or the number that are available in the home.

4. Current legal gun owners don't need to lose their rights to make others safer.
One of the arguments against gun control is that a good guy with a firearm can stop a bad guy with one before something violent happens. The idea of gun control isn't to break into the homes of people to take their firearms away if they own them legally. It is to restrict access to them when someone may be tempted to commit an act of violence with them.

There are numerous ways where this could occur with a minimal impact to current gun owners.

* Licensing requirements could work like a driver's license to ensure firearm knowledge.
* Enforcing laws on the federal level in states would prevent ownership for those should shouldn't have access to a gun.
* Temporary restrictions for specific charges that are domestically related could prevent "crimes of passion."

The Supreme Court already ruled that individuals have the right to own guns. Gun control suggests that part of that right should involve responsible and knowledgeable ownership.

5. Gun control efforts could prevent accidental injuries.
Devin Hodges killed himself on New Year's Eve 2018 after he accidentally shot his friend to death after showing off a loaded handgun in a shed on his property in Lawrenceville, GA. The accidental shot struck 17-year-old Chad Carless while he was sitting next to him.

The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute notes that children who live in a home with a firearm, even if it is locked safely, are three times more likely to die because of an accidental shooting compared to kids who live in homes without a firearm.

About 200 people each year under the age of 25 die because of an accidental shooting in the United States. Up to 30% of these incidents could be prevented with simple gun control measures that include a loading indicator that anyone can understand.

6. There are loopholes in gun ownership that control measures could close.
There were over 4,400 gun shows in the United States operating in 1998. Roughly 500 of them occurred in Texas alone. Each year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms estimates that at least 2,500 of these shows occur annually. Up to 50% of the dealers at them are not licensed to sell firearms. Up to 10% of the guns that are used in crimes committed by juveniles were sold at either flea markets or gun shows.

That translates to about 26,000 firearms used in criminal activities that come from this sales process that remains widely unchecked. Gun control measures to require licensed vendors could prevent many of these sales as it would require them to conduct a criminal background check.

If the FBI fails to complete a background check in 72 business hours, even a licensed dealer can decide to complete the sale. Law enforcement then has three months to research the application, and then confiscate the gun if that person shouldn't have purchased it. About 3.5% of background checks are not finished in those first three business days.

7. Only 3% of people own 50% of the civilian weapons in the United States.
The United States tops the world for the most guns that are owned privately in civilian hands. There is roughly one firearm owned in the U.S. for every person. There are an estimated 101 guns for every 100 people. The next country that comes even close to this ownership rate is Serbia, which has 75 guns per 100 people.

Only 1 in 4 households in the U.S. owns a gun, which means the majority of the quantity is owned by a relative few people. 3% of Americans own 50% of the firearms. If gun control measures looked at future purchases as a need instead of a want, it could help to reduce this issue.

8. It stops people from turning an act of murder into an act of mass murder.
Mother Jones also found that in roughly half of the mass shootings that happened between 1982-2012, high-capacity magazines were used to commit the crime. When this feature is available to a shooter, the fatality rate rose by more than 60% for each incident. Injury rates from high-capacity mags climbed 156%. When some can hold up to 90 rounds, then accuracy no longer becomes part of the equation. People intent on killing can spray an area to inflict mass casualties. Gun control measures could restrict this option without limiting firearm ownership.

9. Gun control laws could save a lot of money from a societal standpoint.
The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation found that the average cost per person of gun violence in the United States was about $560 per year. The U.S. government lost over $5 billion in tax revenues because of these violent acts, with the majority of the costs due to the need for court proceedings. 84% of the people treated for gunshot wounds do not have insurance, which means taxpayers are responsible for the cost of their treatment. An increase in gun-related crime can even lower the property values of a neighborhood by more than 10%.

List of the Cons of Gun Control

1. Gun control doesn't stop people who are determined to purchase a firearm.
If we have learned anything from the war on drugs that has occurred over the past 30+ years, it is that making a product illegal does not stop access to it. If someone wanted to smoke crack or use heroin, then they could still get the product despite the fact that ownership was not permitted under the law. There is no reason to suggest that firearms would follow a different track.

The problem with many forms of gun control is that it places restrictions on those who already own firearms instead of dealing with those who create problems in society. That is why there is a legitimate fear from current owners that steps like this could one day result in a confiscation effort.

2. Guns are tools that people use.
Anything can become a weapon for someone if their mind is set on causing harm. There have been recent terrorist attacks that killed dozens of innocent people because someone used a car as a weapon. There was a mass stabbing attack in China in 2014 that killed 29 people at a railway station. Over 700 people are murdered every year through a person's hands, fists, or feet.

Although there are over 10,000 victims of homicide each year attributed to handguns or firearms, a gun is still just a tool. It might be an easy one to use if someone wants to afflict damage on others, but banning firearms won't change an outcome for a determined individual.

3. Most of the gun violence statistics involve suicides.
When the statistics of gun violence are quoted in the media or in content like this, it is vital to remember that most sources combine homicide and suicide numbers as a way to drive home the point that guns offer fatal consequences. If someone decides to take their own life, it is clearly a tragedy. Something somewhere failed that person, making a gunshot the only way out.

About 25% of the successful suicide attempts in the U.S. in 2012 involved hanging or suffocation. Another 17% of people chose poisoning as the preferred way to end their life. If you combine these two actions, more people die from causes not related to firearms in this manner.

Identifying people who are contemplating this action is the step we must take to provide them with the help they require. If we only focus on gun control, then the other methods of suicide will see a surge of interest.

4. Gun control actions are usually based on fear instead of fact.
According to the Washington Times, 48% of people say that they are not comfortable seeing someone carrying a handgun in a holster in public. That figure climbs to 65% when speaking with Democrats. At the same time, 52% of people say that the "average American" can't be trusted with a firearm and only 41% say that people should be able to carry guns in public in the first place.

Fear is often what drives the gun control debate. 40% of Americans are scared that they will become a victim in a mass shooting one day. A better solution than banning firearms would be to offer educational programs that help people to understand how it is a useful tool.

5. An effort at gun control doesn't change the root cause of the issue.
People commit acts of violence against other for a variety of reasons, but it is a core issue of value that we must look at as a society to begin fixing the issues of violence that occur. We must think that all human life and its potential is priceless for us to begin moving beyond where we are at. Gun control measures might make it more difficult to commit acts of violence, but it will not change the heart at all.

As Time Magazine reports, the international standard for private healthcare plans and government-run facilities around the world is that a human life is only worth $50,000. Even when inflation comes into play, the highest valuation is less than $130,000. Core attitudes like this one are what set us back - not the decision to pick up a gun to try to do something about the problem.

6. Most incidents of violence that involve a gun are self-defense actions.
People are four times more likely to use a gun for self-defense purposes than they are to commit a crime with the firearm. Defensive stories are everywhere when you look for them specifically. A father in Jonesboro, GA, was attacked by an armed robber while walking with his daughter. He shot the criminal in self-defense and did not face charges.

Andrea McNabb shot two of the three men who tried to rob her business in 2015. A pharmacy manager fatally shot a robber and wounded another after they threatened to kill people who were in the store. There are always stories of tragedy to find, but it is also important to review the stories of success where gun control could have prevented a successful outcome too.

7. Gun control laws do not deter crime.
A 2013 study published by Dr. John Lott, Jr, author of More Guns, Less Crime, found that in roughly 30 years of gun control bans, homicide rates at the state level were not significantly impacted by the legislation. The states which had the highest rates of gun ownership actually had the steepest drops in violent crime. Homicide is only one violent action. Rape, armed robbery, and similar acts also decline when there are more legal weapons owned by private individuals in society.

8. Laws that restrict gun ownership infringe on the rights of legal owners.
About 14 million hunters purchase firearms and accessories for their activities each year. Many of the guns that are targeted for control measures are called "assault rifles," but that is not really what they are. The guns that often provide the most fear for people are also the firearms that are used in marksmanship competitions. 32% of gun owners say that the only reason why they own this tool is because they go hunting with it. The average gun is not more or less powerful than the average sporting or hunting weapon.

9. Gun control laws put the power of ownership in the hands of the government.
57% of people say that the reason why they don't support most gun control measures is that they don't want the government to have that kind of power over them. If a society does not have a way to protect itself, then there is nothing to stop a government from turning into a tyranny that could harm others. Even if the only measure passed is an expanded background check, then it creates more information for the government to use in one of their databases.

If the government knows who owns all the guns and can keep that information indefinitely, then there is nothing that can stop them from targeting those people first.

10. Measures to control guns create a violation of privacy.
Gun control measures may have the best interests of everyone in mind, but it is also an effort to reduce the amount of privacy that is available in society today. If microstamping efforts, licensing, or other forms of coding are instituted to track guns, then it would create a privacy issue where a database search could offer access to more information than anyone needs about a legal gun owner.

11. More people die from other causes at a significantly higher rate than they do with firearms.
People in the United States are over 20 times more likely to die because of heart disease than they are because of an act of gun violence. They are 18 times more likely to die because of a malignant tumor. They're even 2.5 times more likely to die because of the complications they experience because of diabetes or 2 times more likely to pass away because of Alzheimer's disease. Between 1999-2013, firearms were only the 12th-leading cause of death in the United States, responsible for 1.3% of fatalities.

12. Gun control laws do not prevent suicides from occurring.
Lithuania is an excellent example of why gun ownership is not a measuring tool to use when looking at the rate of suicide for a country. This nation has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world today at 0.7 per 100 people. It also has one of the highest average suicide rates in the world at 45 per 100,000 people. Japan has a lower rate of gun ownership and a suicide rate of 18 per 100,000 people. The U.S. ranks 26th in the world in this statistics despite having the highest rate of firearm ownership by far.

The pros and cons of gun control offer no easy answers for the American culture to consider. Rulings that involve the Second Amendment provide for individual ownership. That means both sides of this debate must work together to find elements of common ground that can help each group find ways to reduce the deaths attributed to firearms. If every life is precious, then we must treat it that way even when looking at challenging topics such as this one.

Author Bio
Natalie Regoli is a child of God, devoted wife, and mother of two boys. She has a Master's Degree in Law from The University of Texas. Natalie has been published in several national journals and has been practicing law for 18 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
21 Biggest Pros and Cons of Gun Control Laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether you agree with the interpretation of the Second Amendment in the United States that private ownership of firearms is permitted or not, everyone can find common ground with their concerns about gun violence. The scale of this issue is enormous in the United States even though the overall rate of crime is on a 20-year downward trend in many communities.

# data[].attributes.body
The latest shooting has just as much or more to do with the mental health crisis in this country than guns, but let's blame an inanimate item and not the user. It's part of the failure to make people take responsibility for their actions that is condoned by politicians and media both. gun control would appear to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.
So using the scientific approach that Mr. Garon favors it would seem that gun control restricts the rights of the honest citizen while not having the slightest effect on the problem of gun violence. Not only does gun control not help, it hurts by diverting attention away from the search to find the real causal factors of this problem.

# data[].attributes.body
When restrictions are imposed on purchase and possession of firearms people tend to purchase them through illegal means. This will result in the creation of a black market concerned with the buying and selling of firearms and ammunition. The Laws Cannot Change A Person’s Thinking
No law is able change the thought process of a person with a criminal or a guilty intent. The imposing of the Gun Control laws is of no use to such kind of persons. Reduces Self-Dependence. There will be nothing available to the civilians to protect themselves from any harmful situation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gun control has become a sensation over the past few years. There had been debates, opinions, views and controversies related to the same. The set of legal provisions, policies and laws that regulates and governs the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession and the use of firearms by the normal citizens is termed as Gun Control. Most of the countries provide for restrictive policies related to firearms with a few exceptions.

The regulations available in the Americas vary from state to state and the US law provides for very few conditions in order to obtain a gun. Owning a gun is a bane as well as a boon. The benefits and dangers can be for the owner or some other person, depending on the situation. Read the below detailed guide to know more about Gun Control.

Advantages Of Gun Control
Gun control comes along with various advantages to the citizens and the economy as well. The advantages of gun control are:
1. Self-defence

The foremost advantage of gun control is self-defence. A gun owner is capable to protect himself in case of any dangerous or life-threatening situation. He need not depend on others for help every time and can help himself and protect against the harms which might be caused to him.

2. Reduced Homicide And Suicide Rates

In the countries where there is either a complete ban on the possession of guns or proper gun control laws, there is a reduction in the rates of suicides and homicides. Effective gun control laws restrict the possession and usage of guns.

3. Legal Requirements

The 2 nd amendment to the constitution restricts the rights to own the firearms and ammunition only to the military personnel. This restricts the number of people who possess firearms.

4. Reduction In Accidental Injuries

Gun control laws restrict the right to own the firearms and ammunition to a certain category of people. This will reduce the rate of unintentional shootings which cause harm to a large number of people. It will reduce the expenditure of the government on hospital and medical charges.

5. Risk Of Violence Reduced

Studies show that the people who have guns or firearms at their homes tend to have a comparatively more violent nature and behaviours. Control on possession of guns will reduce the risk of any harm which might be caused to anyone as a result of such behaviour and attitude.

Everything which has advantages come with some disadvantages as well. The cons of Gun Control are:

1. Mind Control

The restrictions on possession of guns may lead to reduced crime rates but a person's mind cannot be changed with the laws. People with criminal tendency might opt for other options as well such as knives, vehicles, explosives etc. to fulfil their purpose.

2. Creation Of The Black Market

When restrictions are imposed on purchase and possession of firearms people tend to purchase them through illegal means. This will result in the creation of a black market concerned with the buying and selling of firearms and ammunition.

3. Reduces Self-Dependence

There will be nothing available to the civilians to protect themselves from any harmful situation. They will become more dependent on the police officials for their safety hence, increasing the burden on the government.

4. Security Issues

Gun control will act as a form of the superiority of the government. The civilians will not be available with anything in their self-defence. These will leave the citizens at the mercy of the government and its discretion.

5. The Laws Cannot Change A Person's Thinking

No law is able change the thought process of a person with a criminal or a guilty intent. The imposing of the Gun Control laws is of no use to such kind of persons.

Data related to gun control has been published from time to time by the concerned authorities for public access. The data provided is according to the law and only permitted disclosures of facts and figures and other information is made. The statistics about Gun Control are undeniable.

Roughly around 371 million firearms were owned by the U.S. citizens of whom about 140 million were handguns.

The gun and ammunition manufacture in the United States earn revenue of 17 billion in a year on an average. The civilians contribute to more than half of it.

Out of the murders committed in the United States in 2016, 70% of them were committed with firearms.

It is estimated that the gun violence cost the American economy at least 200 billion every year which comprises of the medical and emergency bills as well.

Around 30000 Americans lost their lives to gun violence, around 70000 were the victims of gunshot wounds.

The victims of homicides and suicides were around 11000 and 20000 respectively and more than 4.6 billion minors live with unlocked firearms at their homes.

The statistics have been increasing gradually with no sign of relief. The comparison of one year to other shows the stark facts and figures differences.

Gun control is nowhere more controversial than in the United States. The proper interpretation of the Second Amendment is also demanded. Gun control is not a new introduction by law; it has been in existence since a very long time.

The gun control law dates back to 1791 when 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution were ratified. Later in the timeline, the first national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. It was amended several times due to flaws.

In 1938, the Federal Firearms Act (FFA) provided for the federal firearms license. The FFA was abrogated by the Gun Control Act (GCA) later. In 1939, in the case of The United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court held that the interstate selling of shotgun can be regulated.

The Gun Control Act 1968 was passed following the death of President John F. Kennedy. The FFA was replaced by the GCA 1968 and added about destructive devices and machine guns. The Act banned the import of such guns which have no supporting purpose and provided provisions of age restrictions.

In1968, the Firearm Owner Protection Act was passed and it mainly provided for the protection of the gun owners. The act also slackened the regulations on sale and transfer of the firearms. The act amended the definition of "silencer".

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was introduced in 1993 signed by President Bill Clinton. The law amending Gun Control Act (CGA) laid down provisions for the complete background check of the person before he purchases a gun from a licensed authority. Maintained by the FBI was established the National Instant Criminal Background Check system.

A temporary prohibiting provision was passed, known as the assault weapons ban, was laid down from September 1994 to September 2004. Later in 2004, through the Tiahrt amendment, public release of the criminal data related to the place of purchase of firearms was banned an only authorized officials were entitled to access to the data.

Various amendments and new laws have been introduced for the purpose of making gun control laws better and useful for the citizens of the United States.

There are a number of laws which regulates gun control. There are federal gun laws along with all the state and local governments having their own firearms and ammunition regulating laws. The various acts provide for the provisions and eligibility of a person to own firearms.
The acts which provide for the federal laws are:

National Firearms Act 1934 (NFA)

Federal Firearms Act 1938 (FFA)

Gun Control Act 1968 (GCA)

Gun-Free School Zones Act 1990

Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1988

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 2005

These are certain Acts in which the laws, rules and regulations relating to the federal laws of gun control are contained.

The eligible persons who can purchase and own a firearm have been provided by the law. The law states the eligibility criteria as follows:

Citizen of the United States or nationals but not citizens of the U.S.

Aliens lawfully admitted to The United States (Non-immigrants)

Has obtained 21 years of age or more

Certain categories of people have been exempted or are deemed ineligible to purchase or possess firearms and ammunition. The persons fall as under:

Convicted by any court of a crime or a fugitive from justice

An illegal alien

A person adjudicated as a mental defective

A person convicted of domestic violence

A person who has renounced his citizenship of the United states

The Acts lays down the provisions for the manufacturers as well. Any person or business who is concerned with the manufacture of firearms and ammunition must obtain a license for the manufacture of firearms.

Besides the United States, there are other countries as well which have Gun Control laws. A few countries provide a complete ban on owning any firearms while a few have restrictive laws. Countries which provide permissive gun laws include:

Albania, Austria, Chad, Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Yemen, Zambia, Honduras and Philippines.

However, there are certain countries which provide for restrictive gun control laws. Nations which have restrictive Gun laws are - Argentina, Spain, Thailand, Germany, Canada, Czech Republic and Turkey. Under restrictive Gun control laws, any person who applies for a permit to own a gun is required to demonstrate the need of it.

Then there are certain countries which have very strict Gun Control legislation. In these countries, it is very tough or maybe impossible to receive a gun. The nations which impose strict Gun control laws are - China, Greece, India, Hungary, Kuwait, Malaysia, Netherlands, North Korea, South Korea and Vietnam.

Frequently Asked Questions

The aim of the write-up was to provide you with the complete details about the Gun control, its history, the federal or state laws etc. You are also made aware of the benefits and negative points of Gun control.Gun control being a popular and controversial topic, everyone should have proper and complete information about it before owning one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun control has become a sensation over the past few years. There had been debates, opinions, views and controversies related to the same. The set of legal provisions, policies and laws that regulates and governs the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession and the use of firearms by the normal citizens is termed as Gun Control.

# data[].attributes.body
Even if it could be proven that gun control prevents violent crime, enforcing sweeping gun-control legislation in the United States would be virtually impossible. There are about 270 million guns in America; and in 29 states, at least one-third of the households owns guns. This would cause the gun owner’s to fight back. It would cause riots in the streets and people would try to fight the officers who came to take their guns. People would riot and burn things down to get the legislators and the president to not take their guns. They world would change so much and become a very bad place.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Guns restrictions pro/con: Strict gun control doesn't work, can't be enforced | Duluth News Tribune

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following the tragic shooting in Las Vegas, anti-gun activists once again started to call for much stricter gun-control measures, which they say will keep Americans safer. Some even suggested the Second Amendment be altered or abolished.

# data[].attributes.body
Of all of the articles i read, this is the one I liked most. And yet still the most obvious truth remains hidden: guns don’t kill people, people kill people, which is the most popular phrase shouted by anti-gun control advocates and it is undoubtedly the most moronic statement. But a person’s mind governs their actions and unfortunately, or rather fortunately, our minds reside beyond the reaches of legislation. We must reluctantly accept the truth that there is no law that can stop a desperate individual seeking to unleash their hateful wrath. If we truly want to stop senseless and unnecessary deaths, we should stop focusing on their method of pain and starting understanding their minds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Unlike in the movies, there is no foreshadowing moment to warn us of the danger to come or eerie music that precedes the crazed killer. A horrific moment like the shooting in Aurora, Colo., violently shakes us, then vanishes, leaving behind the crumpled pieces of a once ordinary day. Every year we are reminded of how abrupt violence can occur at any moment. And every year we panic, succumb to fear and desperately search for the culprits. But our empathy and fear disillusions our minds from remembering that such a tragic moment, like the mind that devised it, is too complex to reduce into a single perpetrator.

Gun control is the cry of millions each time there is a mass shooting like in the one Aurora, or a senseless death as was the case with Trayvon Martin. And yet, when a cult like Jim Jones's People's Temple or Heaven's Gate commits mass suicide there is no inquiry into whether we should control the influences of religions ... Islam being an occasional exception as of late. When a serial rapist is on the loose there is no one shouting against the male appendage, although perhaps we should.

I'm obviously joking. I would not advocate the suppression of religion or even consider that the male libido is responsible for rape.

In fact, it is this writer's hope that most readers do not blame religion or man for such crimes. We understand that victims of cults like Heaven's Gate are often displaced persons seeking kinship and rape is not linked to sexual desire but rather to a psychological need for control. And yet contrary to our understanding, we are told to believe that guns are the main cause of gun violence and their abolishment will cure us of our gun-murdering disease.

I confess, I am not a gun owner and have serious doubts over the meaning of our "right to bear arms." However, believing that gun control will inhibit gun violence is as tedious as believing that withdrawal is an effective form of birth control.

Gun control has not been proven to prevent crime. In May 2007, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy released a report titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?"The findings discovered that an ease of access does not facilitate suicide or murder, and that strict gun control doesn't reduce gun violence. The study supported their findings by addressing a few popular ideas about gun control.

Europe is safer and has fewer guns. Prior to gun control laws, Europe already had significantly lower gun violence than the United States; hence, gun control was not the likely cause of Europe's low murder rates. The study also compared each nation more closely discovering that countries like Belarus, which banned guns, had a murder rate of 10 percent; while Poland which allows guns had only 1.9 percent; meanwhile Russia (now banned) was at 20 percent.

The U.S. is the most violent nation. According to the report, crime in the United States has been declining since the 1990s. The researchers believe the drop in crime could be due to the increase in prison populations and executions, which occurred during the 1990s.

The authors of the study, Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser never promote gun ownership or even suggest that gun control causes crime. They are merely suggesting that there are other factors which contribute to gun violence and that more studies should be conducted on the subject.

And yet still the most obvious truth remains hidden: guns don't kill people, people kill people, which is the most popular phrase shouted by anti-gun control advocates and it is undoubtedly the most moronic statement; much like saying that alcohol doesn't cause alcohol poisoning. And yet there is a truism that we are reluctant and afraid to accept.

A gun is not the motivator of violence but rather it is a means to a very particular end. I will not assume why the Aurora gunman barged into a theatre and murdered 12 people or why George Zimmerman shot a 17-year-old. But we shy away from their reasoning and logic as though understanding them would lead to justification and redemption.

But a person's mind governs their actions and unfortunately, or rather fortunately, our minds reside beyond the reaches of legislation. We must reluctantly accept the truth that there is no law that can stop a desperate individual seeking to unleash their hateful wrath. If we truly want to stop senseless and unnecessary deaths, we should stop focusing on their method of pain and starting understanding their minds.
Nidia Sandoval is a 4th year History major and can be reached at nidias@uci.edu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unlike in the movies, there is no foreshadowing moment to warn us of the danger to come or eerie music that precedes the crazed killer. A horrific moment like the shooting in Aurora, Colo., violently shakes us, then vanishes, leaving behind the crumpled pieces of a once ordinary day.

# data[].attributes.body
Enforcing gun control would take away people’s right to use a gun to protect themselves. For example, if someone was to break into a gun owner’s house, the gun owner would use the gun to protect their family from the intruder. Without this right, it would be much harder for them to protect their family from the intruder. While some would argue that they could just call the police, while that is partly true, no one ever knows how long it would take the police to get there. By that time, the intruder could have already left or worse, he could have already harmed the family.
The website that is listed above states, “Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Gun Control Laws
Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, enslaved people, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. Several colonies' gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."

Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed.
Read More

Pro 2

More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.

Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.

Researchers found that a "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."

Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws.

More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after "red flag" laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable.

The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.

Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children's behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves.... [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot 'gun-proof' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children."
Read More

Pro 3

The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.

The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).

An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns." A study published in the same journal found that "the weapons used [in altercations]... were those closest at hand." And thus, according to another study, "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.
Read More

Pro 4

A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.

According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.

As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").

53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.

77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun.

Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns."

Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).
Read More

Con 1

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."
Read More

Con 2

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights

Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."

Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid's 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected." Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance."

Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.

Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called 'Assault weapons' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie... [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer." According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting.
Read More

Con 3

Gun control laws simply do not work.

Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates." Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.

The main reason gun control doesn't work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns.

The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law... Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'"

More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation-not violence." [82] [85] [154]
Read More

Con 4

Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens.

57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs... 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves."
Read More

Did You Know?

1. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.

2. The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks.

3. The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2015, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (67.3% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.9% of all suicides).

4. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).

5. Carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states since 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation.

6. Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Opponents say the amendment protects individual gun ownership.

# data[].attributes.body
After protests outside Irwin Detention center in Georgia, the U.S finally agrees to pause deportations for women being allegedly abused in these facility. I absolutely agree with this choice that the Ice and Immigration facility has made and they've agreed to stop all deportations of these women till after president-elect Joe Biden's inauguration. I believe that this is the only right thing to do since 43 women have came forward claiming that they had been abused while being detained in this detention center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The U.S. government has agreed to freeze any planned deportations of the immigrant women alleging abuse at a detention facility in Georgia. In a consent motion filed in U.S. District Court Tuesday, authorities and the accusers' attorneys jointly notified the court that the alleged victims - and others with "substantially similar factual allegations" - will not be removed from the United States.

The consent motion, which remains subject to the approval of U.S. District Judge W. Louis Sands, requests that further court proceedings be scheduled "after the week of Jan. 21, 202[1]" - following the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden.

The agreement represents a reprieve for the dozens of women who say that they endured unwanted procedures at Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Ga., including hysterectomies or other surgeries that left them sterile. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility is privately operated by the for-profit LaSalle Corrections, which has denied the allegations.

"In all, more than 43 women have reportedly alleged that they underwent nonconsensual and/or medically unnecessary gynecological procedures while detained at ICDC," a group of more than 100 Democratic lawmakers said in a letter earlier this month to the departments of Homeland Security and Justice.

In the letter they noted that, though federal investigations are reportedly underway, "at least six victims of the alleged nonconsensual, unnecessary, and potentially sterilizing gynecological procedures have reportedly been deported."

Others awaiting conversations with investigators stood in "imminent risk" of deportation, the lawmakers said last week, while still others had narrowly avoided the possibility of removal from the country. As NPR's Joel Rose reported in September, Cameroonian immigrant Pauline Binam was on the tarmac when her scheduled deportation was averted.

Another woman, Yanira Yesenia Oldaker, said to The Guardian that she was also close to deportation when her attorneys successfully intervened.

"The examination was horrible," she told the British newspaper, referring to an examination that she says Dr. Mahendra Amin performed on her without her consent earlier this year. "He hurt me mentally and physically. He caused me a lot of pain."

More than a dozen other women have alleged mistreatment specifically by Amin, a gynecologist, to whom the facility has sent patients. A 27-page whistleblower complaint by a nurse at Irwin described some of these claims in mid-September, along with other allegations of poor medical care and inadequate COVID-19 protections.

Amin, through an attorney, has previously denied the allegations. And in a statement released to news outlets earlier this year, an ICE spokesperson said that "any implication that ICE is attempting to impede the investigation by conducting removals of those being interviewed is completely false."
The case is 7:20-cv-224 filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Agrees To Pause Deportations For Women Alleging Abuse At ICE Facility

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. government has agreed to freeze any planned deportations of the immigrant women alleging abuse at a detention facility in Georgia. In a consent motion filed in U.S. District Court Tuesday, authorities and the accusers' attorneys jointly notified the court that the alleged victims - and others with "substantially similar factual allegations" - will not be removed from the United States.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why the label ‘cult’ gets in the way of understanding new religions.

# data[].attributes.subject
Why the label ‘cult’ gets in the way of understanding new religions.

# data[].attributes.body
"In fact, early Christianity could be called a “cult” because Christian beliefs and practices – such as not publicly worshipping the emperor – were considered strange and dangerous in ancient Rome." Religions have persisted for thousands of years, with no new ones popping up.. at all, really. The reason is because these new religions and belief systems are labelled "Cults" and nobody likes cults or cultists. Take it as you will, but the longevity of existing religions and their intertwinement with the government and people give no room for outcasts to start their own religions and beliefs without being a cultist and inevitably being investigated and likely shut down by the government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Cults" are back in the news.

The Netflix documentary "Wild Wild Country" has revived interest in the " free-love cult" founded by Indian guru Rajneesh, or " Osho," that in 1984 launched a " bioterror attack," spreading salmonella in restaurants near the group's Oregon headquarters.

Then there's NXIVM, a " sex cult" based in Albany, New York. Media reports state that NXIVM's female members recruited "slaves," who were branded with the initials of the group's leader, Keith Raniere. Raniere, also called the "Vanguard," has been arrested for sex trafficking.

Scholars sometimes use the term "cult" to describe groups that have distinctive beliefs and strong levels of commitment. The problem comes with the popular use of the word "cult," often used to describe authoritarian groups that induce beliefs or actions through "mind control" or "brainwashing."

As an academic, who teaches and writes about religion, I believe that the label "cult" gets in the way of understanding new or alternative religions.

Here's why

First, "cult" is a vague category.

Authoritarian leaders and structures can easily be found in groups that have clear missions. From the Catholic Church to the U.S. Marine Corps, many organizations rely on strict discipline and obedience. Using the word "cult" is an easy way to criticize a group, but a poor way to describe one.

Second, "mind control" or "brainwashing" theories have problems.

In popular understanding, the leaders of cults use mind control or brainwashing to permanently remake the personalities of recruits by forcing them to do and believe things that they normally wouldn't accept. If that's true, as some scholars have pointed out, there would be measurable impacts at " the biochemical level of the brain." For now, there's no proof that brain cells can be automatically changed by religious means.

"Brainwashing" was associated with the Unification Church, or " The Moonies," founded by South Korean Rev. Sun Myung Moon. The Moonies would isolate new recruits and shower them with attention, a process called " love bombing."

But, as sociologist Eileen Barker showed in her research on the Unification Church, recruitment rates were still very low. Whether it's "love bombing," "mind control" or "brainwashing," the results aren't very impressive.

Third, the label "cult" is negative.

As British sociologist James Beckford has observed, "cults" are usually associated with beliefs and practices considered to be "unhealthy." But what is seen as healthy in one culture may be seen as unhealthy in another.

In fact, early Christianity could be called a "cult" because Christian beliefs and practices - such as not publicly worshipping the emperor - were considered strange and dangerous in ancient Rome.

Fourth, the term "cult" does not engage with key parts of a group's belief system.

For example, religion scholars James Tabor and Eugene Gallagher argue that the 1993 " Waco siege" ended in tragedy, in part, because the FBI ignored the Bible-based beliefs of the Branch Davidians, a millenarian Christian sect.

Four agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms were killed trying to arrest "cult leader" David Koresh. After a 51-day standoff, the FBI injected tear gas into the group's compound. Seventy-five people, including children, lost their lives when the compound burned to the ground. If the FBI had dialogued with Branch Davidians by taking their beliefs seriously - instead of seeing members as brainwashed followers of a mad cult leader - deaths could perhaps have been avoided.

Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It takes careful study to understand whether a religious group is simply "strange" or dangerous.

But the term "cult" lumps together all new or alternative religions. And when people hear the word "cult," discussions end before any study has even begun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the label 'cult' gets in the way of understanding new religions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Cults" are back in the news. The Netflix documentary "Wild Wild Country" has revived interest in the " free-love cult" founded by Indian guru Rajneesh, or " Osho," that in 1984 launched a " bioterror attack," spreading salmonella in restaurants near the group's Oregon headquarters.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is a list of CBD products for animals that can affect them very positively. The list of products cures a list of different things. From anxiety, to skin irritation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If somebody told you that a single product could help pets with all kinds of problems from skin irritation to pain to anxiety, you'd probably think they were talking nonsense, but CBD for pets delivers on these promises. Derived from the cannabis plant but completely non-psychoactive, CBD reacts with the endocannabinoid system that exists in almost all animals (only insects appear to lack it) to produce a range of positive effects, such as calming, pain relief, and exterior healing when used topically.

We reviewed dozens of different types of CBD for pets to identify the best of the best, comparing various factors, such as strength, formulation, overall quality, and average customer reviews.

After careful consideration, we chose The Anxious Pet Organic Hemp Oils as our top pick. CBD oil tends to be the most versatile choice and is easy to adjust the dosage for pets of different sizes. This is a high quality CBD oil you can trust that's rich in the active ingredients of CBD, such as cannabinoids and terpenes.

The 5 Top-Rated CBD for Pets
*Ratings are current at the time of publication and can change
Best CBD for Pets Overall: The Anxious Pet Organic Hemp Oils

If you want a high-quality, multipurpose CBD product, The Anxious Pet Organic Hemp Oils are the way to go. The Anxious Pet is known for their premium health-focused pet products, and their range of hemp oils for pets is no exception. They're produced using full-spectrum hemp extract containing less than 0.3% THC. CBD oils can have many benefits for your cat or dog including, but not limited to: boosting their immune health, strengthening their bone and joint health, and calming their anxiety.

We love that The Anxious Pet clearly takes the utmost care to create the most optimal pet CBD products possible. This is exemplified by the fact that each CBD oil is not only veterinarian formulated and lab tested, but is also organic. The company even has a Scientific Advisory Board made up of leading veterinarians, scientists, and nutrition experts to ensure the quality, safety, and efficacy of their CBD oils (as well as their other products).

In the range, you'll find a total of three options to choose from: 400 mg Organic Hemp Oil (For Cats), 400 mg Organic Hemp Oil (For Dogs), and 800 mg Organic Hemp Oil (For Dogs). US customers can enjoy fast and free shipping, with no-contact delivery as standard. Each bottle is 30 mL in total and costs $48, which is great value in comparison to other comparable CBD oils for pets-particularly when you consider the high-quality of these products! So if you're curious to give CBD products for your pet a go, we believe that The Anxious Pet Organic Hemp Oils are the best place to start.
The Anxious Pet Organic Hemp Oils Key Features:
Best CBD Oil for Pets: CBDFx CBD Oil For Small Dogs and Cats

CBDFx CBD Oil For Small Dogs and Cats ticks all the boxes you could be looking for in a CBD oil for pets. For starters, it's from a reputable company like CBDFx, which has quickly become a go-to company for CBD products for pets and humans alike. And once you discover more about this CBD oil, which contains 150mg of CBD per 30ml bottle, it's easy to see why.

For starters, it exclusively features high-quality ingredients. In fact, the formulation is so pure you'll only find a total of three ingredients in each bottle: CO2 extracted hemp, 100% organically grown full-spectrum CBD, and coconut oil. So that means you won't need to worry about your pup or kitty ingesting cheap fillers, additives, or any other nasty ingredients every time you give them a dose.

Similar to our very top choice, CBDFx CBD Oil For Small Dogs and Cats is also lab tested for purity. The company is so transparent about the results of these tests that you can read the reports on directly their site. The fact that they do so speaks volumes about this CBD oil's purity and safeness. So if you're after a CBD oil for your cat or dogs that weighs under 20 lbs, don't look past this one.
CBDFx CBD Oil For Small Dogs and Cats Key Features:
Best Budget CBD for Pets: Charlotte's Web Calming Chews for Dogs

Charlotte's Web Calming Chews for Dogs are a great primer into CBD for pets without needing to spend too much. They're primarily designed for calming and anxiety relief but it follows they may offer some pain relief, too. Despite their affordable price these treats are surprisingly potent. Each treat contains 5 mg of broad spectrum hemp extract, of which at least 2.5 mg is naturally occurring phytocannabinoids, including CBD. They also contain a range of other naturally calming ingredients: Valerian root, passion flower extract, and chamomile.

Thanks to their chicken flavor, these treats are highly palatable and dogs are unlikely to pass them up. They can really help anxious dogs, with plenty of users singing their praises and talking about how calmer their dogs are after eating these treats. A pack of 30 treats costs $20, which is very reasonably considering their quality ingredients.
Charlotte's Web Calming Chews for Dogs Key Features:
Best Topical CBD for Pets: Charlotte's Web Canine Hemp Infused Balm

Topical CBD treatments are those used externally on your pet, such as the Charlotte's Web Canine Hemp Infused Balm, which is our favorite topical CBD for pets. The combination of broad spectrum CBD oil, coconut oil, jojoba oil and shea butter create a protective and moisturizing barrier that remains on the surface of the skin. Its primary use is for dry and cracked skin, but it can also provide much needed relief for irritated skin. In addition to moisturizing and helping with faster healing, the CBD is also likely to offer some topical pain relief.

This balm is safe for dogs with sensitive skin. A 1.5 oz pot costs $24.99 but a little goes a long way.
Charlotte's Web Canine Hemp Infused Balm Key Features:
Best CBD Capsules for Pets: HolistaPet CBD Capsules for Dogs & Cats

If you'd like to give your pet CBD oil but are worried about getting the dosage right, CBD capsules do the hard work for you, avoiding any dosing errors. HolistaPet CBD Capsules for Dogs & Cats contain 5 mg of CBD per capsule and these full spectrum CBD capsules are highly effective for dogs and cats. For proper recommended dosage read HolistaPet's CBD dosage chart.

These capsules also contain hemp seed powder as a carrier, which is rich in omega fatty acids, protein, and antioxidants, so it's good for your dog all round. The formula is perfect for dogs who are suffering from arthritic joint pain, or severe anxiety. The CBD in the capsules is completely THC-free, so you don't need to worry about any unwanted effects. A pack of 30 capsules costs $25.95.
HolistaPet CBD Capsules for Dogs & Cats Key Features:
Who Should Buy CBD for Pets

People buy CBD for pets for a variety of reasons. One of the most common is for pain relief, often from arthritis, but you can use CBD for general pain relief, too (though if you don't know why your pet is hurting, a trip to the vet is warranted first). You might also want to try CBD for your pet due to anxiety. This might be general anxiety, separation anxiety, or phobias, such as loud noises. CBD has natural calming properties, so many pet parents find it's helpful for their pet's anxiety.

Important Features to Consider

CBD for pets should have a few important features. Here's what to consider when selecting a CBD for your pet:

Type of CBD product. First of all, decide what type of CBD product you want to give your pet. The most common types are CBD oil, CBD treats, CBD capsules, and topical CBD products. CBD oil is the most versatile and makes it easy to adjust the dose so it's right for your pet. CBD capsules are great of you want the benefits of CBD oil but without the possible error of getting the dosage wrong, though this means you can't adjust the dose as easily. CBD treats are great for occasional use or if your dog only needs low dose CBD but can work out quite costly otherwise. Topical CBD treatments work well for hot spots, irritated skin, and other external ailments.

Strength. We'll talk more about dosage later, but it's important to choose the right strength of CBD products for the size of your pet. For items such as treats, you'll usually be told the amount of CBD contained in one treat and in the package overall. With CBD oil, the amount of CBD in the whole bottle is listed, and the amount per ml may or may not be included. You can, however, work out the amount of CBD per ml but dividing the total amount of CBD in the bottle by the number of ml.

Reason for use. Some CBD for pets is designed for specific uses. For instance, some CBD treats are marketed as calming treats, for anxiety, and others are advertised as helping with joint pain. These types of products often contain other ingredients to boost calming or pain relief, but any CBD has more or less the same effect.

Ease of administering. Choose a CBD product that will be easy to give to your pet. If using CBD oil, you may need to squirt it straight into your dog's mouth, which can be a challenge with some dogs. You have the option to mix it with food, but if your dog doesn't eat up their whole meal, some will be wasted and you won't know how much they consumed. CBD treats are generally easy to administer, though you may have problems if your dog is a picky eater.

Frequently Asked Questions
How much CBD should I give my pet?
You'll need to work out the correct CBD dosage based on your pet's body weight. Most CBD products will list their recommended dosage on the package, but recommendations can vary. A low yet still effective dose to start with is 0.2 mg of CBD per lb of body weight. So, a 50 lb dog would need 10 mg of CBD per day, for example. However, if you don't notice any improvement after a few weeks, you can increase this gradually up to a maximum of 0.5 mg per lb of body weight.

For more on how much to give to your dog and when, check out our article, CBD Dosage For Dogs: How Much CBD Should I Give My Dog?
Is CBD safe for pets?
Yes, CBD is very safe for pets. There are no serious side-effects if you stick to the correct dosage, and even an overdose is unlikely to result in more than excessive drowsiness, an unsteady walk, and perhaps some vomiting. You must, however, make sure it contains no THC or a very small amount of THC (no more than 0.2 mg per 30 ml) since the psychoactive effects can feel confusing and unpleasant for pets.
Can I give my pet human CBD?
In theory, yes (with a few caveats), but in practice we'd highly recommend sticking to CBD that's made specifically for pets. The problem with CBD products for humans is that they're stronger than those designed for pets, so you'd need to be extremely careful with dosage, especially for a small pet. What's more, they can contain ingredients that are unsafe or even toxic for pets, such as artificial sweeteners or alcohol. As such, if you must give a pet human CBD, first check the ingredient list thoroughly to ensure there's nothing in it your pet shouldn't consume.
How long does it take CBD to work?
When administering CBD to calm your pet and relieve anxiety, you should see results in as little as 30 to 60 minutes. However, for long term pain relief, it can take as long as 2 to 4 weeks for the full effects to show themselves.

Other CBD for Pets We Reviewed

We looked at 20 other CBD products for pets. Even though they didn't make our 5 best CBD for pets list, they're the best of the rest and each is still a great option. The information you'll need to compare each one is included with the listing.

CBD Oil for Pets
HolistaPet CBD Oil For Dogs & Cats
A CBD oil that's formulated with pure CO ₂ extracted Full Spectrum CBD Oil and Hemp Seed Oil.
Key Features:
Cost: $25.95 to $144.95
Joy Organics CBD Oil Tincture for Pets
Quality THC CBD oil for pets in an olive oil carrier that's available in 225 and 450 mg strengths.
Key Features:
Cost: $30 to $54
Petly Pet Hemp CBD Oil for Cats
The 125 mg strength is ideal for cats. The broad spectrum CBD oil sits in a coconut oil carrier, which has a range of health benefits of its own. Don't forget to use their discount code PL20 to get 20% off your purchase!
Key Features:
Cost: $40
RE:Botanticals Hemp Tincture for Pets
A top notch mid-strength CBD oil that's made using USDA certified organic full spectrum hemp grown in the USA.
Key Features:
Cost: $30
Receptra Pet Tincture
This tincture is designed for pets up to 40 lbs and is great for joint health due to the high fatty acid content of the carrier oil.
Key Features:
CBD Pet Treats
Joy Organics CBD Dog Treats
Theses CBD treats flavored with beef, making them a palatable choice for dogs who'll never know they're getting their "medicine" in the form of a tasty treat.
Key Features: Price: HolistaPet CBD Dog Treats + Stress & Anxiety Relief
Tasty peanut butter and green apple flavor chews that are highly palatable to most dogs and contain 5 mg of CBD per treat with roughly 30 treats per bag.
Key Features:
Cost: $26.95-$64.95
Charlotte's Web Hip & Joint Chews for Dogs
If your dog's suffering from stiff joints or arthritis, she may benefit from these CBD treats specially formulated for dogs with hip and joint troubles.
Key Features:
Cost: $20
Elixinol Edibites CBD Dog Treats
Soft, chewy CBD dog treats in a tasty pizza flavor with the option of 2 or 5 mg strengths per treat.
Key Features:
Cost: $10 to $29
Elixinol Pet Releaf Crunchy Edibites
For dogs who prefer crunchy treats to soft chews, these are a great choice. They're available in 1.5 mg dosage for small dogs and 3 mg dosage for medium and large dogs.
Key Features:
Topical CBD for Pets
Elixinol CannaCare Topical CBD for Dogs
This plant-based topical cream is great for skin irritation, inflammation, insect bites, and more, containing 31 mg of full spectrum CBD.
Key Features:
Other CBD for Pets
HolistaPet Catnip Spray with CBD
Thanks to the proprietary nano CBD contained in this product, it's easily infused in this catnip spray.
Key Features:
Cost: $23.95
Charlotte's Web Freedom Service Dog's Bundle
This bundle of goodies includes CBD treats, CBD oil, and a Charlotte's Web bandanna for your dog, plus it helps support Freedom Service Dogs of America.
Key Features:
Cost: $76

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 18 Best CBD for Pets of 2020 - Pet Life Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If somebody told you that a single product could help pets with all kinds of problems from skin irritation to pain to anxiety, you'd probably think they were talking nonsense, but CBD for pets delivers on these promises. Derived from the cannabis plant but completely non-psychoactive, CBD reacts with the endocannabinoid system that exists in...

# data[].attributes.body
There are many disease that can damage the functions of the body and even kill people. What I have here a few disease that can be vaccinated against. One of the examples is Measles. It is important to get a vaccine for measles because of how it kills people and that it is infectious. Many people are worried for their children because some of them cannot be vaccinated for Measles. By herd immunity, the more people who are immune to the Measles, the less likely the people who cannot get vaccinated will die from those diseases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
IMAGES PROVIDED BY:

1) Biophoto Associates / Science Source

2) Visuals Unlimited, Inc./Carol & Mike Werner

3) Wavebreakmedia Ltd

4) Karen Kasmauski / Science Faction

5) BSIP/Universal Images Group

6) iStock / Getty Images Plus

7) Hemera

8) Science Picture Co

9) Science Source

10) M Phillips David / Science Source

SOURCES:

CDC.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

Vaccines.gov.

World Health Organization.

CDC.

Reviewed by Renee A. Alli, MD on February 25, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Slideshow: Top 10 Vaccine-Preventable Disease: Measles, Flu, and More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IMAGES PROVIDED BY: 1) Biophoto Associates / Science Source 2) Visuals Unlimited, Inc./Carol & Mike Werner 3) Wavebreakmedia Ltd 4) Karen Kasmauski / Science Faction 5) BSIP/Universal Images Group 6) iStock / Getty Images Plus 7) Hemera 8) Science Picture Co 9) Science Source 10) M Phillips David / Science Source SOURCES: CDC.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why music should be allowed while doing schoolwork

# data[].attributes.subject
Why music should be allowed while doing schoolwork

# data[].attributes.body
I think it's obvious that lots of people enjoy listening to music. Also school can be really stressful, so why shouldn't kids be able to listen to music when the teacher isn't explaining anything. Studies have shown that music relieves stress. So why can't student relieve stress while doing their work?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last month, researchers found that music releases dopamine, the feel-good chemical in your brain. It also found that dopamine was up to 9% higher when volunteers listened to music that they enjoyed. It may be obvious to us, but it is strong evidence for the link between music and mental wellbeing.

As part of our Taking care of business campaign, we also ran a simple survey asking people how they use music to boost their mood. We surveyed over a thousand people and surprisingly only a third of people use music to give them a lift when they feel down at work.

It may be because people generally can't listen to music at work - only half of employers surveyed allowed their staff to listen to music at work. It may also be because of the working environment: if you work directly with customers, drive or are in an open plan office, you can't really listen to music while you work.

I love to listen to music at work, but at Mind we have an open plan office which makes it hard. It's tough to find the right balance between enjoying music and disturbing people. And then of course there is the most controversial question of all - what to play?

(Tell us what your favourite working tunes are on Facebookor Twitterand we'll add them to our Spotify playlist)

At another workplace we were split into small rooms; in our room there were only 8 of us and we could easily agree what to play (most of the time!). I think the music really helped, the office became a much more relaxing place to be.

Of course, there are lots of other things you can do besides playing music to manage stress, like eating properly and not working long hours.

Tell me what you think - is music an important part of your working life? Do you have a team radio or do you use headphones? What do you do to manage stress at work?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why music is great for your mental health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last month, researchers found that music releases dopamine, the feel-good chemical in your brain. It also found that dopamine was up to 9% higher when volunteers listened to music that they enjoyed. It may be obvious to us, but it is strong evidence for the link between music and mental wellbeing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Vaccines Overwhelming the Immune System. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Vaccines Overwhelming the Immune System. 

# data[].attributes.body
Many parents have express the fear of vaccinating children when they are young. They are worried that the immune system of child would be overwhelmed and cause more harm than good. However, the immune system isn't likely to get overwhelmed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although children are now immunised against more diseases than ever before, the actual number of antigens (foreign particles) they receive through vaccination is considerably lower.

For example, the old version of the whooping cough vaccine contained around 3,000 antigens whereas the total number of antigens contained in all of today's childhood vaccines together is around 150.

How can this be? Well, modern vaccines are highly purified, generally containing a single 'piece' of the disease-causing pathogen. A child's immune system is well-equipped to cope with numbers of foreign molecules far greater than this on a daily basis.

In addition, research has turned up no signs that combination vaccines could 'overload' the immune system. What is known is that some vaccine components are less efficient in stimulating the immune system when administered as part of a combination. This can result in children needing more separate injections instead of fewer injections with a combination vaccine but, overall, combination vaccines still significantly reduce the total number of injections necessary.

Up to six vaccines (tetanus, whooping cough, polio, diphtheria, Hib, and hepatitis B) can be combined into a single injection. Critics have questioned the need for hepatitis B protection, for newborn babies are unlikely to get it given that the disease is typically transmitted through sexual contact. Experts say hepatitis B in new babies is nearly always very severe and becomes chronic in the vast majority of cases.

There are also purely practical reasons for combining vaccines where appropriate and including hepatitis B. The vaccination rate is generally low in adolescents so the WHO recommends that immunisation be offered at an early age in order to reduce the spread of the disease.

For more information, see 'Vaccination - 20 Objections & Responses', produced by the Robert Koch Institute and Paul Ehrlich Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can giving several vaccines overwhelm a child's immune system? - VaccinesToday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although children are now immunised against more diseases than ever before, the actual number of antigens (foreign particles) they receive through vaccination is considerably lower. For example, the old version of the whooping cough vaccine contained around 3,000 antigens whereas the total number of antigens contained in all of today's childhood vaccines together is around 150.

# data[].attributes.body
This article sums up the true effects with pink tax and has women's opinions as well to correspond to the theme.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Written by: Alicen Ricard

So many people have stood in the shaving aisle looking at razors only to see that the pink ones for women cost a couple more dollars than the ones for men. Not only is this common, it has a name: the pink tax. Some people think the "pink tax" is too cutesy of a name, and maybe it is. However, it doesn't matter what it's called, products geared towards women are known to cost more. It's not like the products are different either. Usually, the only difference is that they're pink or have "for women" on the packaging.

Razors are one of the first things that come to mind when the pink tax is mentioned but it isn't the only product that is more expensive for women. Other examples include earplugs, personal care kits containing the same items, calculators, ankle support, kids helmets, kids' clothing, and even laxatives. Identical children's t-shirts from the Gap and Paw Patrol bike helmets costing more for girls than boys shows how young the gendering of products starts. It isn't just products either. When buying a car, car dealers generally make higher initial offers to women than they do to men.

There are companies that are working against the idea of the pink tax. Billie is a women's razor subscription company that is selling a razor and four cartridges for $9, which is much lower than a lot of brands in stores. They also use the pink tax as a part of their marketing strategy. You can use referral codes to earn coupons to get money back that you had to pay on other products due to the pink tax. Other companies are starting to make changes, Boxed and Tesco being two of them.

Women are the driving force in making these changes. Not only in getting items more equally priced, but in trying to eliminate the tampon tax.

Source: CBC

It is harder for women to rise to corporate roles, get into and stay into well-paying jobs, and get into STEM careers. Women tend to live longer, therefore need the products for longer. They are also paid less than men. Yet, they have to pay more for everyday products. Why do we need gendered products at all? It would be different if they had drastically different benefits but they aren't all that different. It doesn't make sense that women make less on average than men, and they have to pay more for products. Until companies axe the pink tax and start charging the same amount of money for the same products, it makes sense to just buy the cheaper of the two. After all, it's quality that matters, not the colour of the product or the gendered label. Try to buy products from companies that price their items fairly. The pink tax may not be going anywhere but we don't have to buy into it.

Let us know your suggestions for avoiding the pink tax.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Written by: Alicen Ricard So many people have stood in the shaving aisle looking at razors only to see that the pink ones for women cost a couple more dollars than the ones for men. Not only is this common, it has a name: the pink tax.

# data[].attributes.headline
Face facts: ‘Black Lives Matter’ is all about hate

# data[].attributes.subject
Face facts: ‘Black Lives Matter’ is all about hate

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about how BLM is seen as a threat. They call the protestors “rioters”, and say that the movement and organization has never been peaceful and it is just full of hate. Which is not entirely true, BLM focuses on the killings of black people by the police, while there is black-on-black crime that is not the focus of BLM. There are two sides to everything, in this case it’s the BLM supporters who just want change and will do anything for that to happen ie. rioting and trashing the environment, and the BLM supporters who want change but have limits and don’t provoke the enemy ie. peacefully protesting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Black Lives Matter protesters march toward the White House in June. AFP via Getty Images

Its agenda is plain for all to see: cop-killing.

With another two police officers shot at the Black Lives Matter riot in Louisville on Wednesday, it's time to lift the veil on the whole movement: It's a haven for unrepentant cop-killers.

These aren't isolated incidents. It has been fewer than two weeks since supposedly "peaceful" BLM radicals chanted, "We hope they die," while blocking the entrance to a hospital where two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies were undergoing life-saving surgery. An assailant had walked up to their patrol vehicle and opened fire from point-blank range without provocation.

Those chilling words echo the rhetoric we hear from BLM founders and members, who make clear that a prime objective of BLM is to "Kill Cops." Up until now, this has been kept well enough under wraps to deceive major corporations, professional sports leagues and countless well-meaning Americans.

Joe Biden has made propagating this movement's lies a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, waiting months before condemning the wanton violence perpetrated by BLM. Staff members on the Biden campaign contributed money to secure the release of rioters charged with crimes. Meanwhile, progressive Democratic prosecutors refused to even charge some of the worst rioters.

Some people try to separate BLM "the organization" from "the movement" that goes by the same name, but at most they are two sides of the same coin. From the start, both the organization and the movement - BLM writ large - have been about hatred and violence that extends beyond police and includes all white people, all blacks who are conservative and the United States of America.

We saw this in 2014, when BLM first attained national prominence. After months of anti-police rioting, a man pledging "revenge for Michael Brown and Eric Garner" traveled to New York City, stuck a pistol through the window of a squad car and opened fire. Detectives Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu died on the scene.

I mourned the officers like the rest of New York did. And when I met with the Ramos and Liu families, I was aghast. I reiterated my call for politicians to abandon their reckless anti-police rhetoric. "Maybe," I suggested, "they should spend the next four months not talking about police hatred, but talking about what they are going to do about bringing down crime in the community."

Nineteen months later, a man opened fire at a BLM protest in Dallas, murdering five officers. BLM disavowed responsibility, but the killer had deep links to the movement's radical ideology, stating that he "wanted to kill white people, especially white officers." BLM supporters certainly didn't stop chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" in the aftermath, either.

BLM counts on a legion of journalists who believe BLM will help advance a "progressive" agenda. They will never admit that violence against police isn't an unfortunate outgrowth of the BLM movement - but the central point.

Black Lives Matter isn't about black lives. It ignores the 8,000 to 9,000 black lives taken by other blacks every year in minority communities across the nation. Those black lives, and the lives of African American police officers, don't matter.

Black Lives Matter isn't about "holding police accountable," and it isn't a good-faith call for reasonable reform.

If we had a functioning mainstream media, this would be common knowledge by now. Instead, people are learning the real nature of BLM by watching protesters scream "We hope they die" outside a hospital where two cops are fighting for their lives.

The time has come to face the facts. If you ever supported Black Lives Matter, then you are either a left-wing radical - or you got duped. There is no shame in the latter. By design, the relentlessly repeated cry of "Black lives matter" is an unassailable moral truism, calculated to bully people into supporting a radical, revolutionary, anti-order movement.

The good news is that it isn't too late to make the right decision. You can be a good person who decries racism and condemns police misconduct yet still reject violent left-wing radicalism unequivocally. You can stand for the safety and human dignity of black people - and of all people - and simultaneously stand with the police officers who maintain law and order.

It starts with rejecting BLM and every politician who has been cynical enough to enable the radical forces intent on tearing this country apart. When you see Black Lives Matter, realize they are dedicated to killing cops. Too much blood has been spilled already. It has to stop.
Rudolph Giuliani is the former mayor of New York City.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Face facts: 'Black Lives Matter' is all about hate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Its agenda is plain for all to see: cop-killing. With another two police officers shot at the Black Lives Matter riot in Louisville on Wednesday, it's time to lift the veil on the whole movement: It's a haven for unrepentant cop-killers. These aren't isolated incidents.

# data[].attributes.body
"It is not hard to understand why many people would be willing to look further and further afield to find targets: an innocently uttered Chinese word for “that,” mere attendance at a rally to hear a point of view, or a 33-year-old article that the author has renounced and apologized for." This article gives many examples of what individuals are being cancelled for. It allows the readers to see the lengths people will go, just to attempt to cancel somone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cancel culture symbol or cultural cancellation and social media censorship as canceling or ... [+]
getty

There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with. Someone like J.K. Rowling isn't really a victim of cancel culture-she's too rich to be punished in any meaningful way and she doesn't have the kind of job that one can be fired from.

Powerful voices on the institutional left claim that there is no such thing as cancel culture. For example, the New York Times columnist Charles Blow, tweets: "Once more THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CANCEL CULTURE. There is free speech. You can say and do as pls, and others can choose never to deal this [sic] you, your company or your products EVER again. The rich and powerful are just upset that the masses can now organize their dissent."

This argument confuses dissent with punishment. The victims of cancel culture are generally not powerful people. They are often vulnerable people who suffer devastating harm. A previous post discussed an African American school security guard who was fired for using the N-word in the course of telling a student not to direct that word at him. (Thankfully, he was eventually re-hired after a national furor erupted.) The same post discussed a teacher who was fired for inadvertently failing to address a student by his self-identified gender pronoun. The security guard and the teacher each have four children to support and lost their health insurance as well as their income when they were fired. They are hardly examples of the rich and powerful.

But at least one can say the security guard actually used the n-word and the teacher actually did have a religious objection to recognizing transgender identities. But as people, especially in educational settings, have grown more intimidated, it has been harder for the cancel culture warriors to find such people. So instead of finding someone who actually used the n-word, they expand the definition of cancel-worthy language. A professor at the University of Southern California was placed on leave for using a Chinese word that some people think sounds like the n-word even though it is simply the Chinese word for "that." The professor is a member of USC US-China Institute, and was teaching a communications course and was using the word to illustrate how different languages use different words to fill in pauses.

The situation has deteriorated to the point that one no longer needs to say anything to be targeted by cancel culture. At Skidmore College in New York State, a professor is being boycotted for merely attending a pro-police "Back the Blue" rally. He didn't participate in any way, he didn't speak or shout slogans, or carry a sign. He says he just wanted to hear what the demonstrators had to say. But an email circulated at the college saying, "Tonight, I and other Skidmore students witnessed Profs. David Peterson and Andrea Peterson at an anti-Black Lives Matter protest. We demand the immediate dismissal of both Skidmore staff members for engaging in hateful conduct that threatens Black Skidmore students." (It turned out that Andrea Peterson doesn't work at the college.)

The professor found a notice on his classroom door saying "STOP. By entering this class you are crossing a campus-wide picket line and breaking the boycott against Professor David Peterson. This is not a safe environment for marginalized students . . . By continuing to take this course you are enabling bigoted behavior on this campus."

According to Professor Peterson, as a result of the boycott, he has no remaining students in one class and only a very small number of students in his other two classes. He also says the university is investigating him for possible bias.

This extravagant expansion of cancel-worthy behavior is not limited to academia and it is not limited to anything a person has said or done anytime this century. A top executive at Boeing recently lost his job because of an article he wrote in 1987, opposing allowing women to serve as fighter pilots. The executive apologized for the article, writing: "My article was a 29-year-old Cold War navy pilot's misguided contribution to a debate that was live at the time. The dialogue that followed its publication 33 years ago quickly opened my eyes, indelibly changed my mind, and shaped the principles of fairness, inclusion, respect and diversity that have guided my professional life since." That was not enough to save his job.

In no way is contemporary cancel culture about free speech or debate. Nor is it any longer primarily about social justice. The power to get someone fired must be a thrilling feeling. It also strengthens group bonds and can raise one's social standing in certain groups. It is not hard to understand why many people would be willing to look further and further afield to find targets: an innocently uttered Chinese word for "that," mere attendance at a rally to hear a point of view, or a 33-year-old article that the author has renounced and apologized for.

What is harder to understand is why the truly powerful, those with the power to suspend and investigate professors and to fire people, are allowing this? Perhaps they fear becoming targets themselves. Whatever the reason, there is no denying that cancel culture exists and is getting worse.

... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is no single accepted definition of cancel culture, but at its worst, it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions. The victim ends up losing their job or is significantly harmed in some way well beyond the discomfort of merely being disagreed with.

# data[].attributes.body
Pollution is when humans alter the environment and most of the time the animals are effected negatively. Many things that are being made for packaging are finding its way into animals habitats and they either get stuck in it or mistake it for food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic waste is choking our planet - polluting the air, water, and soil both people and wildlife need to survive. And as this crisis spreads to every corner of the globe, WWF is leading the charge to help reimagine how we source, design, dispose of, and reuse the plastic materials communities most depend upon. Because while plastic can help make our hospitals safer, our food last longer, and our packages more efficient to ship, it has no place in nature.

Every day plastic is flowing into our natural environment at an unprecedented rate - a dump truck every minute into our oceans alone. It's time to turn off the tap. Together. WWF is uniting our global networks of industry leaders, consumers, and policymakers to transform our systems, so the plastics we discard become plastics we use again.

As everyday people continue doing their part to reduce, reuse, and recycle, WWF is engaging policymakers to ensure the plastics leaving recycling bins stay in effective waste management systems, and out of the hands of illegal plastic traffickers.

Through our ReSource:Plastic activation hub, we're helping some of the world's leading companies translate ambitious plastic commitments into measurable change - both across their business operations, and well beyond their supply chains. We're working on the ground with local partners from Indonesia to Peru to keep plastic out of our planet's most extraordinary ecosystems. And in oceans the world over we're supporting communities and fishing crews, big and small, to improve gear use and recovery, so issues like abandoned nets no longer pose one of the biggest threats to marine life.

WWF is fighting for a world with no plastic in nature by 2030. It's a world where our oceans teem with marine life, not discarded nets, bottles and bags. Where no human breathes the toxic fumes of burning plastic. And where every indispensable plastic product is used to make another.

It's a world where people and nature thrive together. Join us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic waste is choking our planet - polluting the air, water, and soil both people and wildlife need to survive. And as this crisis spreads to every corner of the globe, WWF is leading the charge to help reimagine how we source, design, dispose of, and reuse the plastic materials communities most depend upon.

# data[].attributes.body
There are many questions surrounding the vaccine. Some people say that their child doesn’t need vaccines because babies receive antibodies from their mom… However, that isn’t always the case. Whooping cough immunity is one of the few that isn’t passed from mother to child.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During pregnancy, antibodies are transferred from mother to child. Further immune factors are received through breast milk, particularly in the early months of life. This maternal protection is a crucial support for the infant immune system during its development - but it does not cover everything.

Mothers can pass on antibodies against diseases she herself has had in the past or those against which she has been vaccinated. Because antibodies are quickly degraded, the child is left without protection from 6-12 months after birth and also shortly after their mother discontinues breastfeeding.

Also, antibodies against certain infectious - like whooping cough, for example - are not transferrable so the baby cannot depend on maternal antibodies for protection in all cases. Premature babies are particularly vulnerable as their immune systems are not well developed and they are less likely to have benefited from passive protection. Vaccines can be particularly beneficial for premature births.

Passive immunity (from maternal antibodies) and vaccinations can complement one another. Children who are breastfed suffer less frequently from severe meningitis caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) bacteria, and also produce more protective antibodies against these bacteria after receiving a Hib vaccine.

There's no need to choose between natural immunity and vaccine-induced protection. Both is best.

For more information, see 'Vaccination - 20 Objections & Responses', produced by the Robert Koch Institute and Paul Ehrlich Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Babies receive antibodies with breast milk. Why do they need vaccines if they already get this natural protection? - VaccinesToday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During pregnancy, antibodies are transferred from mother to child. Further immune factors are received through breast milk, particularly in the early months of life. This maternal protection is a crucial support for the infant immune system during its development - but it does not cover everything.

# data[].attributes.body
The threats of higher sea levels, more extreme weather events, and increased bacteria growth all threaten the health of the world's population and with the continuation of the cause of why climate change is happening who knows what the world will be like in 50 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On This Page:

Overview

The impacts of climate change include warming temperatures, changes in precipitation, increases in the frequency or intensity of some extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. These impacts threaten our health by affecting the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the weather we experience.

The severity of these health risks will depend on the ability of public health and safety systems to address or prepare for these changing threats, as well as factors such as an individual's behavior, age, gender, and economic status. Impacts will vary based on a where a person lives, how sensitive they are to health threats, how much they are exposed to climate change impacts, and how well they and their community are able to adapt to change.

People in developing countries may be the most vulnerable to health risks globally, but climate change poses significant threats to health even in wealthy nations such as the United States. Certain populations, such as children, pregnant women, older adults, and people with low incomes, face increased risks; see the section below on Populations of Concern.

Temperature-Related Impacts

Warmer average temperatures will lead to hotter days and more frequent and longer heat waves. These changes will lead to an increase in heat-related deaths in the United States-reaching as much as thousands to tens of thousands of additional deaths each year by the end of the century during summer months.

These deaths will not be offset by the smaller reduction in cold-related deaths projected in the winter months. However, adaptive responses, such as wider use of air conditioning, are expected to reduce the projected increases in death from extreme heat.

Exposure to extreme heat can lead to heat stroke and dehydration, as well as cardiovascular, respiratory, and cerebrovascular disease. Excessive heat is more likely to affect populations in northern latitudes where people are less prepared to cope with excessive temperatures. Certain types of populations are more vulnerable than others: for example, outdoor workers, student athletes, and homeless people tend to be more exposed to extreme heat because they spend more time outdoors. Low-income households and older adults may lack access to air conditioning which also increases exposure to extreme heat. Additionally, young children, pregnant women, older adults, and people with certain medical conditions are less able to regulate their body temperature and can therefore be more vulnerable to extreme heat.

Human Health Risks in Your State

Urban areas are typically warmer than their rural surroundings. Large metropolitan areas such as St. Louis, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Cincinnati have seen notable increases in death rates during heat waves. Climate change is projected to increase the vulnerability of urban populations to heat-related health impacts in the future. Heat waves are also often accompanied by periods of stagnant air, leading to increases in air pollution and associated health effects.

Air Quality Impacts

Changes in the climate affect the air we breathe both indoors and outdoors. Warmer temperatures and shifting weather patterns can worsen air quality, which can lead to asthma attacks and other respiratory and cardiovascular health effects. Wildfires, which are expected to continue to increase in number and severity as the climate changes, create smoke and other unhealthy air pollutants. Rising carbon dioxide levels and warmer temperatures also affect airborne allergens, such as ragweed pollen.

Despite significant improvements in U.S. air quality since the 1970s, as of 2014 about 57 million Americans lived in counties that did not meet national air quality standards. Climate change may make it even harder for states to meet these standards in the future, exposing more people to unhealthy air.

Increases in Ozone

Scientists project that warmer temperatures from climate change will increase the frequency of days with unhealthy levels of ground-level ozone, a harmful air pollutant, and a component in smog.

People exposed to higher levels of ground-level ozone are at greater risk of dying prematurely or being admitted to the hospital for respiratory problems.

Ground-level ozone can damage lung tissue, reduce lung function, and inflame airways. This can aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. Children, older adults, outdoor workers, and those with asthma and other chronic lung diseases are particularly at risk.

Because warm, stagnant air tends to increase the formation of ozone, climate change is likely to increase levels of ground-level ozone in already-polluted areas of the United States and increase the number of days with poor air quality.

The higher concentrations of ozone due to climate change may result in tens to thousands of additional ozone-related illnesses and premature deaths per year by 2030 in the United States, assuming no change in projected air quality policies.

Changes in Particulate Matter

Particulate matter is the term for a category of extremely small particles and liquid droplets suspended in the atmosphere. Fine particles include those smaller than 2.5 micrometers (about one ten-thousandth of an inch). Some particulate matter such as dust, wildfire smoke, and sea spray occur naturally, while some is created by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels to produce energy. These particles may be emitted directly or may be formed in the atmosphere from chemical reactions of gases such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and volatile organic compounds.

Inhaling fine particles can lead to a broad range of adverse health effects, including lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cardiovascular disease.

Climate change is expected to increase the number and severity of wildfires. Particulate matter from wildfire smoke can often be carried very long distances by the wind, affecting people who live far from the source of this air pollutant.

Older adults are particularly sensitive to short-term particle exposure, with a higher risk of hospitalization and death. Outdoor workers like firefighters can also have high exposure.

Due to the complex factors that influence atmospheric levels of fine particulate matter, scientists do not yet know whether climate change will increase or decrease particulate matter concentrations across the United States. Particulate matter can be removed from the air by rainfall, and precipitation is expected to increase in quantity though not necessarily frequency. Climate-related changes in stagnant air episodes, wind patterns, emissions from vegetation and the chemistry of atmospheric pollutants will also affect particulate matter levels.

Climate Change and Human Health Quiz

Changes in Allergens and Asthma Triggers

Allergic illnesses, including hay fever, affect about one-third of the U.S. population, and more than 34 million Americans have been diagnosed with asthma. Climate change may affect allergies and respiratory health. The spring pollen season is already occurring earlier in the United States for certain types of plants, and the length of the season has increased for some plants with highly allergenic pollen such as ragweed. In addition to lengthening the ragweed pollen season, rising carbon dioxide concentrations and temperatures may also lead to earlier flowering, more flowers, and increased pollen levels in ragweed.

Impacts from Extreme Weather Events

Increases in the frequency or severity of some extreme weather events, such as extreme precipitation, flooding, droughts, and storms, threaten the health of people during and after the event. The people most at risk include young children, older adults, people with disabilities or medical conditions, and the poor. Extreme events can affect human health in a number of ways by:

Reducing the availability of safe food and drinking water.

Damaging roads and bridges, disrupting access to hospitals and pharmacies.

Interrupting communication, utility, and health care services.

Contributing to carbon monoxide poisoning from improper use of portable electric generators during and after storms.

Increasing stomach and intestinal illness, particularly following power outages.

Creating or worsening mental health impacts such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

In addition, emergency evacuations pose health risks to older adults, especially those with limited mobility who cannot use elevators during power outages. Evacuations may be complicated by the need for concurrent transfer of medical records, medications, and medical equipment. Some individuals with disabilities may also be disproportionally affected if they are unable to access evacuation routes, have difficulty in understanding or receiving warnings of impending danger, or have limited ability to communicate their needs.

Vectorborne Diseases

Vectorborne diseases are illnesses that are transmitted by disease vectors, which include mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas. These vectors can carry infectious pathogens, such as viruses, bacteria, and protozoa, from animals to humans. Changes in temperature, precipitation, and extreme events increases the geographic range of diseases spread by vectors and can lead to illnesses occurring earlier in the year.

The geographic range of ticks that carry Lyme disease is limited by temperature. As air temperatures rise, ticks are likely to become active earlier in the season, and their range is likely to continue to expand northward. Typical symptoms of Lyme disease include fever, headache, fatigue, and a characteristic skin rash.

Mosquitoes thrive in certain climate conditions and can spread diseases like West Nile virus. Extreme temperatures-too cold, hot, wet, or dry-influence the location and number of mosquitoes that transmit West Nile virus. More than three million people were estimated to be infected with West Nile virus in the United States from 1999 to 2010.

The spread of climate-sensitive diseases will depend on both climate and non-climate factors such as land use, socioeconomic and cultural conditions, pest control, access to health care, and human responses to disease risk. The United States has public health infrastructure and programs to monitor, manage, and prevent the spread of many diseases. The risks for climate-sensitive diseases can be much higher in poorer countries that have less capacity to prevent and treat illness.

Water-Related Illnesses

People can become ill if exposed to contaminated drinking or recreational water. Climate change increases the risk of illness through increasing temperature, more frequent heavy rains and runoff, and the effects of storms. Health impacts may include gastrointestinal illness like diarrhea, effects on the body's nervous and respiratory systems, or liver and kidney damage.

Climate impacts can affect exposure to waterborne pathogens (bacteria, viruses, and parasites such asCryptosporidium and Giardia); toxins produced by harmful algal and cyanobacterial blooms in the water; and chemicals that end up in water from human activities.

Changing water temperatures mean that waterborne Vibrio bacteria and harmful algal toxins will be present in the water or in seafood at different times of the year, or in places where they were not previously threats.

Runoff and flooding resulting from increases in extreme precipitation, hurricane rainfall, and storm surge will increasingly contaminate water bodies used for recreation (such as lakes and beaches), shellfish harvesting waters, and sources of drinking water.

Extreme weather events and storm surges can damage or exceed the capacity of water infrastructure (such as drinking water or wastewater treatment plants), increasing the risk that people will be exposed to contaminants.

Water resource, public health, and environmental agencies in the United States provide many public health safeguards to reduce risk of exposure and illness even if water becomes contaminated. These include water quality monitoring, drinking water treatment standards and practices, beach closures, and issuing advisories for boiling drinking water and harvesting shellfish.

Food Safety and Nutrition

Climate change and the direct impacts of higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are expected to affect food safety and nutrition. Extreme weather events can also disrupt or slow the distribution of food.

Higher air temperatures can increase cases of Salmonella and other bacteria-related food poisoning because bacteria grow more rapidly in warm environments. These diseases can cause gastrointestinal distress and, in severe cases, death. Practices to safeguard food can help avoid these illnesses even as the climate changes.

Climate change will have a variety of impacts that may increase the risk of exposure to chemical contaminants in food. For example, higher sea surface temperatures will lead to higher mercury concentrations in seafood, and increases in extreme weather events will introduce contaminants into the food chain through stormwater runoff.

Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air can act as a "fertilizer" for some plants, but lowers the levels of protein and essential minerals in crops such as wheat, rice, and potatoes, making these foods less nutritious.

Extreme events, such as flooding and drought, create challenges for food distribution if roads and waterways are damaged or made inaccessible.

Mental Health

Any changes in a person's physical health or surrounding environment can also have serious impacts on their mental health. In particular, experiencing an extreme weather event can cause stress and other mental health consequences, particularly when a person loses loved ones or their home.

Individuals with mental illness are especially vulnerable to extreme heat; studies have found that having a pre-existing mental illness tripled the risk of death during heat waves. People taking medication for mental illness that makes it difficult to regulate their body temperature are particularly at risk.

Even the perceived threat of climate change (for example from reading or watching news reports about climate change) can influence stress responses and mental health.

Some groups of people are at higher risk for mental health impacts, such as children and older adults, pregnant and post-partum women, people with pre-existing mental illness (see above), people with low incomes, and emergency workers.

Populations of Concern

Climate and Health Factsheets
View the factsheets "
Some groups of people are more vulnerable than others to health risks from climate change. Three factors contribute to vulnerability: sensitivity, which refers to the degree to which people or groups are affected by a stressor such as higher temperatures; exposure, which refers to physical contact between a person and a stressor; and adaptive capacity, which refers to an ability to adjust to or avoid potential hazards. For example, while older adults are sensitive to extreme heat, an older person living in an air-conditioned apartment won't be exposed as long as she stays indoors, and as long as she can afford to pay for the electricity to run the air conditioner. Her ability take these actions is a measure of her adaptive capacity.

Some populations are especially vulnerable to climate health risks due to particular sensitivities, high likelihood of exposure, low adaptive capacity, or combinations of these factors.

Communities of color (including Indigenous communities as well as specific racial and ethnic groups), low income, immigrants, and limited English proficiency face disproportionate vulnerabilities due to a wide variety of factors, such as higher risk of exposure, socioeconomic and educational factors that affect their adaptive capacity, and a higher prevalence of medical conditions that affect their sensitivity.

Children are vulnerable to many health risks due to biological sensitivities and more opportunities for exposure (due to activities such as playing outdoors). Pregnant women are vulnerable to heat waves and other extreme events, like flooding.

Older adults are vulnerable to many of the impacts of climate change. They may have greater sensitivity to heat and contaminants, a higher prevalence of disability or preexisting medical conditions, or limited financial resources that make it difficult to adapt to impacts.

Occupational groups, such as outdoor workers, paramedics, firefighters, and transportation workers, as well as workers in hot indoor work environments, will be especially vulnerable to extreme heat and exposure to vectorborne diseases.

People with disabilities can be very vulnerable during extreme weather events, unless communities ensure that their emergency response plans specifically accommodate them.

People with chronic medical conditions are typically vulnerable to extreme heat, especially if they are taking medications that make it difficult to regulate body temperature. Power outages can be particularly threatening for people reliant on certain medical equipment.

Other Health Impacts

Other linkages exist between climate change and human health. For example, changes in temperature and precipitation, as well as droughts and floods, will affect agricultural yields and production. In some regions of the world, these impacts may compromise food security and threaten human health through malnutrition, the spread of infectious diseases, and food poisoning. The worst of these effects are projected to occur in developing countries, among vulnerable populations. Declines in human health in other countries can affect the United States through trade, migration, and immigration and has implications for national security.

Although the impacts of climate change have the potential to affect human health in the United States and around the world, there is a lot we can do to prepare for and adapt to these changes-such as establishing early warning systems for heat waves and other extreme events, taking steps to reduce vulnerabilities among populations of concern, raising awareness among healthcare professionals, and ensuring that infrastructure is built to accommodate anticipated future changes in climate. Understanding the threats that climate change poses to human health is the first step in working together to lower risks and be prepared.

References
5. EPA (2014). Air Quality Trends. Accessed March 1, 2016. National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 p. (PDF, 80 pp, 4.6MB).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The impacts of climate change include warming temperatures, changes in precipitation, increases in the frequency or intensity of some extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. These impacts threaten our health by affecting the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the weather we experience.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Does the Climate Affect the Ecosystem of the Rainforest?

# data[].attributes.subject
How Does the Climate Affect the Ecosystem of the Rainforest?

# data[].attributes.body
The rain forest one of the world's most various animal species habitat. The rainforest produces 40% of the worlds oxygen and supports so many different animals yet we cut it down? These animals have adapted to the temperature, the moisture, and the constant rain. The change of the climate hasn't had to many effects on the rain forests of the world just yet but has affected it in slight ways such as increased humidity but that is about it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Does the Climate Affect the Ecosystem of the Rainforest?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tropical rainforests cover more than 30 million square kilometers. Temperate rainforests add another 300,000 square kilometers (116,000 square miles). Those numbers sound large, but they represent only about 6 percent of the Earth's surface -- yet the rainforests supply more than 40 percent of the Earth's oxygen and contain more than half of the planet's biomass.

# data[].attributes.body
Is it hard to see that deserts are being affected by climate change? Climate change has had huge effects on deserts increasing droughts and even extending the area of the deserts. Deserts take up a quarter of the land on earth so the increase of deserts cause a serious problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's hard to imagine that global warming would have much effect on the world's already hot deserts. But even small changes in temperature or precipitation could drastically impact plants and animals living in the desert. In some cases global warming is predicted to increase the area of deserts, which already cover a quarter of Earth.

Human activities such as firewood gathering and the grazing of animals are also converting semiarid regions into deserts, a process known as desertification. Population growth and greater demand for land are serious obstacles in the effort to combat this problem.

Global warming is increasing the incidence of drought, which dries up water holes. Higher temperatures may produce an increasing number of wildfires that alter desert landscapes by eliminating slow-growing trees and shrubs and replacing them with fast-growing grasses.

Irrigation used for agriculture may in the long term lead to salt levels in the soil that become too high to support plants. Grazing animals can destroy many desert plants and animals. Potassium cyanide used in gold mining may poison wildlife.

Off-road vehicles, when used irresponsibly, can cause irreparable damage to desert habitats. Oil and gas production may disrupt sensitive habitat. And nuclear waste may be dumped in deserts, which have also been used as nuclear testing grounds.

We can more efficiently use existing water resources and better control salinization to improve arid lands, find new ways to rotate crops to protect the fragile soil, and plant sand-fixing bushes and trees.

Planting leguminous plants, which extract nitrogen from the air and fix it in the ground, can help restore soil fertility. People can also use off-road vehicles only on designated trails and roadways and dig artificial grooves in the ground to retain rainfall and trap windblown seeds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
deserts threats desserts desertification dessertification sahara kalahari sonoma sand dunes oasis oases drought

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's hard to imagine that global warming would have much effect on the world's already hot deserts. But even small changes in temperature or precipitation could drastically impact plants and animals living in the desert. In some cases global warming is predicted to increase the area of deserts, which already cover a quarter of Earth.

# data[].attributes.body
With the temperature increasing animals are at the most effect of it. Food chains, habitats, and the risk of extinction have increased. Food chains can be ripped apart because of increased temperatures mainly affecting ecosystems in the north and south poles of the world. Higher temperatures mean less ice and animals depend on that ice for a place to sleep or to find food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On This Page:

Overview

Climate is an important environmental influence on ecosystems. Changing climate affects ecosystems in a variety of ways. For instance, warming may force species to migrate to higher latitudes or higher elevations where temperatures are more conducive to their survival. Similarly, as sea level rises, saltwater intrusion into a freshwater system may force some key species to relocate or die, thus removing predators or prey that are critical in the existing food chain.

Climate change not only affects ecosystems and species directly, it also interacts with other human stressors such as development. Although some stressors cause only minor impacts when acting alone, their cumulative impact may lead to dramatic ecological changes. For instance, climate change may exacerbate the stress that land development places on fragile coastal areas. Additionally, recently logged forested areas may become vulnerable to erosion if climate change leads to increases in heavy rain storms.

Changes in the Timing of Seasonal Life Cycle Events

For many species, the climate where they live or spend part of the year influences key stages of their annual life cycle, such as migration, blooming, and reproduction. As winters have become shorter and milder, the timing of these events has changed in some parts of the country:

Earlier springs have led to earlier nesting for 28 migratory bird species on the East Coast of the United States.

Northeastern birds that winter in the southern United States are returning north in the spring 13 days earlier than they did in a century ago.

In a California study, 16 out of 23 butterfly species shifted their migration timing and arrived earlier.

Because species differ in their ability to adjust, asynchronies can develop, increasing species and ecosystem vulnerability. These asynchronies can include mismatches in the timing of migration, breeding, pest avoidance, and food availability. Growth and survival are reduced when migrants arrive at a location before or after food sources are present.

Range Shifts

As temperatures increase, the habitat ranges of many North American species are moving north and to higher elevations. In recent decades, in both land and aquatic environments, plants and animals have moved to higher elevations at a median rate of 36 feet (0.011 kilometers) per decade, and to higher latitudes at a median rate of 10.5 miles (16.9 kilometers) per decade. While this means a range expansion for some species, for others it means movement into less hospitable habitat, increased competition, or range reduction, with some species having nowhere to go because they are already at the top of a mountain or at the northern limit of land suitable for their habitat. These factors lead to local extinctions of both plants and animals in some areas. As a result, the ranges of vegetative biomes are projected to change across 5-20% of the land in the United States by 2100.

For example, boreal forests are invading tundra, reducing habitat for the many unique species that depend on the tundra ecosystem, such as caribou, arctic foxes, and snowy owls. Other observed changes in the United States include a shift in the temperate broadleaf/conifer forest boundary in the Green Mountains of Vermont; a shift in the shrubland/conifer forest boundary in New Mexico; and an upward elevation shift of the temperate mixed/conifer forest boundary in Southern California.

As rivers and streams warm, warmwater fish are expanding into areas previously inhabited by coldwater species. As waters warm, coldwater fish, including many highly-valued trout and salmon species, are losing their habitat, with projections of 47% habitat loss by 2080. In certain regions in the western United States, losses of western trout populations may exceed 60 percent, while in other regions, losses of bull trout may reach about 90 percent. Range shifts disturb the current state of the ecosystem and can limit opportunities for fishing and hunting.

See the Agriculture and Food Supply Impacts page for information about how habitats of marine species have shifted northward as waters have warmed.

Food Web Disruptions

The impact of climate change on a particular species can ripple through a food web and affect a wide range of other organisms. For example, the figure below shows the complex nature of the food web for polar bears. Not only is the decline of sea ice impairing polar bear populations by reducing the extent of their primary habitat, it is also negatively impacting them via food web effects. Declines in the duration and extent of sea ice in the Arctic leads to declines in the abundance of ice algae, which thrive in nutrient-rich pockets in the ice. These algae are eaten by zooplankton, which are in turn eaten by Arctic cod, an important food source for many marine mammals, including seals. Seals are eaten by polar bears. Hence, declines in ice algae can contribute to declines in polar bear populations.

The Pika

Penguins and Climate Change: A Case of "Winners" and "Losers"

Buffer and Threshold Effects

Ecosystems can serve as natural buffers from extreme events such as wildfires, flooding, and drought. Climate change and human modification may restrict ecosystems' ability to temper the impacts of extreme conditions, and thus may increase vulnerability to damage. Examples include reefs and barrier islands that protect coastal ecosystems from storm surges, wetland ecosystems that absorb floodwaters, and cyclical wildfires that clear excess forest debris and reduce the risk of dangerously large fires.

In some cases, ecosystem change occurs rapidly and irreversibly because a threshold, or "tipping point," is passed. One area of concern for thresholds is the Prairie Pothole Region in the north-central part of the United States. This ecosystem is a vast area of small, shallow lakes, known as "prairie potholes" or "playa lakes." These wetlands provide essential breeding habitat for most North American waterfowl species. The pothole region has experienced temporary droughts in the past. However, a permanently warmer, drier future may lead to a threshold change-a dramatic drop in the prairie potholes that host waterfowl populations, which subsequently provide highly valued hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities.

Similarly, when coral reefs become stressed from increased ocean temperatures, they expel microorganisms that live within their tissues and are essential to their health. This is known as coral bleaching. As ocean temperatures warm and the acidity of the ocean increases, bleaching and coral die-offs are likely to become more frequent. Chronically stressed coral reefs are less likely to recover.

Pathogens, Parasites, and Disease

Climate change and shifts in ecological conditions could support the spread of pathogens, parasites, and diseases, with potentially serious effects on human health, agriculture, and fisheries. For example, the oyster parasite, Perkinsus marinus, is capable of causing large oyster die-offs. This parasite has extended its range northward from Chesapeake Bay to Maine, a 310-mile expansion tied to above-average winter temperatures. For more information about climate change impacts on agriculture, visit the Agriculture and Food Supply Impacts page. To learn more about climate change impacts on human health, visit the Health Impacts page.

Extinction Risks

Climate change, along with habitat destruction and pollution, is one of the important stressors that can contribute to species extinction. The IPCC estimates that 20-30% of the plant and animal species evaluated so far in climate change studies are at risk of extinction if temperatures reach the levels projected to occur by the end of this century. Global rates of species extinctions are likely to approach or exceed the upper limit of observed natural rates of extinction in the fossil record. Examples of species that are particularly climate sensitive and could be at risk of significant losses include animals that are adapted to mountain environments, such as the pika; animals that are dependent on sea ice habitats, such as ringed seals and polar bears; and coldwater fish, such as salmon in the Pacific Northwest.

References
[1] IPCC (2014). Settele, J., R. Scholes, R. Betts, S. Bunn, P. Leadley, D. Nepstad, J.T. Overpeck, and M.A. Taboada. Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. [4] USGCRP (2014). Groffman, P. M., P. Kareiva, S. Carter, N. B. Grimm, J. Lawler, M. Mack, V. Matzek, and H. Tallis, 2014: Ch. 8: Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 200-201. [6] USGCRP (2014). Chapin, F. S., III, S. F. Trainor, P. Cochran, H. Huntington, C. Markon, M. McCammon, A. D. McGuire, and M. Serreze, 2014: Ch. 22: Alaska. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 514-536. [9] USGCRP (2014). Leong, J.-A., J. J. Marra, M. L. Finucane, T. Giambelluca, M. Merrifield, S. E. Miller, J. Polovina, E. Shea, M. Burkett, J. Campbell, P. Lefale, F. Lipschultz, L. Loope, D. Spooner, and B. Wang, 2014: Ch. 23: Hawai'i and U.S. Affiliated Pacific Islands. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 537-556. [10] NRC (2008). Ecological Impacts of Climate Change. National Research Council. The National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA. [12] USFWS (2010). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the American Pika as Threatened or Endangered. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
wildlife and plants climate adaptation strategy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate is an important environmental influence on ecosystems. Changing climate affects ecosystems in a variety of ways. For instance, warming may force species to migrate to higher latitudes or higher elevations where temperatures are more conducive to their survival.

# data[].attributes.body
The bright white of ice reflects solar light back into space. With that being said the way it is going right now the ice melts sooner because of rising temperatures and only lasts through late fall and the winter and melts sooner in the spring causing more solar light to be absorbed into our oceans raising the temperature.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. While sea ice exists primarily in the polar regions, it influences the global climate.

Sea ice is frozen water that forms, expands, and melts in the ocean. It is different from icebergs, glaciers, ice sheets, and ice shelves, which originate on land. For the most part, sea ice expands during winter months and melts during summer months, but in certain regions, some sea ice remains year-round. About 15 percent of the world's oceans are covered by sea ice during part of the year.

While sea ice exists primarily in the polar regions, it influences the global climate. The bright surface of sea ice reflects a lot of sunlight out into the atmosphere and, importantly, back into space. Because this solar energy "bounces back" and is not absorbed into the ocean, temperatures nearer the poles remain cool relative to the equator.

When warming temperatures gradually melt sea ice over time, fewer bright surfaces are available to reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere. More solar energy is absorbed at the surface and ocean temperatures rise. This begins a cycle of warming and melting. Warmer water temperatures delay ice growth in the fall and winter, and the ice melts faster the following spring, exposing dark ocean waters for a longer period the following summer.

Changes in the amount of sea ice can disrupt normal ocean circulation, thereby leading to changes in global climate. Even a small increase in temperature can lead to greater warming over time, making the polar regions the most sensitive areas to climate change on Earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national oceanic and atmospheric administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sea ice is frozen water that forms, expands, and melts in the ocean. It is different from icebergs, glaciers, ice sheets, and ice shelves, which originate on land. For the most part, sea ice expands during winter months and melts during summer months, but in certain regions, some sea ice remains year-round.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article it talks about the dramatic progress in movement toward gender equality between 1970 and 2018, however the change has slowed or stalled. The slowdown on some indicators and stall on others suggests that further progress requires substantial institutional and cultural change.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading this article, it is very clear that a ban on abortion can go one of two ways, but they both have the same outcome. If abortion is banned, half of the United States population will be upset because they do not believe it should be. If abortion is not banned, half of the United States population will be angry, because they do not see it as being morally correct. In order abortion can be restricted, banned, or completely legalized, people need to figure out what the country needs and come to a compromise together.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Key facts about the abortion debate in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the nation’s post-Roe chapter begins and the legal battle shifts to the states, here are key facts about Americans’ views on abortion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Human Trafficking from trafficker's perspective 

# data[].attributes.subject
Human Trafficking from trafficker's perspective 

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about the disgusting ways that traffickers lure people into the human trafficking ring. The article explains just how manipulative traffickers are and how aware people need to be of their surroundings and the people they associate with.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Traffickers recruit, harbor, transport, provide and/or obtain people for the purpose of compelling labor and/or commercial sexual exploitation. They use force, fraud or coercion to exact work and profit from others. Fraudulent brokers, corrupt officials and family members who knowingly do any of the above are easily identified as traffickers.

Those who hear about the practices of human traffickers often express outrage, disbelief, disgust, anger and even confusion. "How could someone do this to another human being?"

Justifying Human Trafficking discusses the different actors and structures that sustain human trafficking. Part 1 takes a look at traffickers and mechanisms used to justify actions.

©End Slavery Now

Distortion

Traffickers distort situations by framing them under more acceptable terms. For example, Japan is currently facing a labor shortage. To fill these vacant positions, the government offers an internship program that brings in foreign workers to the country. These internships are legal and advertised as opportunities to hone transferrable skills. However, in some instances, workers are trapped in debt bondage and forced to take roles that don't require skilled labor. The word "internships" masks these programs from what they truly are - indentured servitude.

Rationalization

Excuses are the markings of rationalization, and perpetrators use faulty and false reasoning to convince themselves that they've done no wrong. A study by Katherine P. Avgerinos quotes a Ukrainian woman who migrated to Spain: "Life is very hard there because there is no work. Today I sent money to my mother...to pay for her house. You work, work, work, and then they don't pay you because there's no money. For example, I worked in an ashtray factory, and when there was no money to pay me they said "take ashtrays," 100 ashtrays. So? Can you eat ashtrays?"

A recruiter who hears similar comments by people in his or her community might think that he or she is providing a service by giving those people "work opportunities." It becomes easy for a recruiter to justify prostituting or selling people to labor exploiters when the alternative for those people would've been to starve and die.

There's also the golden rationalization of "everybody does it" and the futility illusion that "if I don't do it, somebody else will." Those are rationalizations used by traffickers pimping women and girls in Tenancingo, Mexico.

Social Comparisons

Traffickers might compare themselves to other traffickers in order to dissociate themselves from the most brutal manifestations of human trafficking. Noi, an elderly lady who trafficked Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar to Thailand, claims that what she did was charity since the Rohingya Muslims she either smuggled or trafficked were fleeing ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, she distinguished herself as someone more ethical since she "didn't mistreat the refugees."

Blame Shifting

In blame shifting, traffickers such as factory managers might defend themselves by accusing people outside of their control of forcing them to traffick others. Blame shifting arguments might start off with the following: "The company owner will shut down our factory if we don't produce the daily quota. So, I hire children from rural areas to operate dangerous machinery and lock them in the factory so that they keep working. I can't fight the company because it's too powerful, and I can't adopt more ethical policies because that would lower productivity, close down the factory and I'd be out of a job. It's really the rich company owner that enslaves these children. Not me."

Dehumanization

Dehumanization strips people of their identity, identifies them as "the other" and makes it so that they are viewed as inferior and deserving of exploitation. Socially accepted norms (e.g., caste systems, gender-based violence) make the dehumanization process easier, if not automatic. Human trafficking thrives in societies where certain groups of people are already marginalized and abused and where perpetrators go unpunished because they're not perceived to have committed a wrongdoing against a person.

These justifications and defense mechanisms are not unique to traffickers. Knowing and unknowing compliers like you and me have contributed to this cycle of enslavement. To varying degrees, we've all denied, distorted and rationalized our ways into buying slave-made products. We've elevated ourselves by saying, "At least, we don't purchase sex or prostitute others." We've deemed the problem too big to solve and beyond our sphere of influence by resolving to leave governments, law enforcement, NGOs, practitioners and businesses to figure it out. And we've become players in dehumanization as we've failed to participate in processes that would help end human rights abuses.

The question, then, is not just "How could someone do this to another human being?"

Asking "How could I let someone do this to another human being?" yields more revealing answers.

Part 2 will cover the roles and limitations of knowing and unknowing compliers.

Topics: Forced Labor, Child Labor, Bonded Labor, Sex Trafficking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Justifying Human Trafficking: The Mind of a Trafficker - End Slavery Now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Traffickers recruit, harbor, transport, provide and/or obtain people for the purpose of compelling labor and/or commercial sexual exploitation. They use force, fraud or coercion to exact work and profit from others. Fraudulent brokers, corrupt officials and family members who knowingly do any of the above are easily identified as traffickers.

# data[].attributes.body
Face masks make breathing more difficult. For people with COPD, face masks are in fact intolerable to wear as they worsen their breathlessness.[5] Moreover, a fraction of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled at each respiratory cycle. Those two phenomena increase breathing frequency and deepness, and hence they increase the amount of inhaled and exhaled air. This may worsen the burden of covid-19 if infected people wearing masks spread more contaminated air. This may also worsen the clinical condition of infected people if the enhanced breathing pushes the viral load down into their lungs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dear Editor

In their editorial to the BMJ,[1] Greenhalgh et al. advise that surgical masks should be worn in public to prevent some transmission of covid-19, adding that we should sometimes act without definitive evidence, just in case, according to the precautionary principle. The Authors quote a definition of the precautionary principle found on Wikipedia, "a strategy for approaching issues of potential harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking."

However, while no single formulation of that principle has been universally adopted,[2] the precautionary principle aims at preventing researchers and policy makers from neglecting potentially-harmful side effects of interventions. Before implementing clinical and public health interventions, one must actively hypothesise and describe potential side effects and only then decide whether they are worth being quantified on not.

Most scientific articles and guidelines in the context of the covid-19 pandemic highlight two potential side effects of wearing surgical face masks in the public, but we believe that there are other ones that are worth considering before any global public health policy is implemented involving billions of people.

The two potential side effects that have already been acknowledged are:

(1) Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security and make people adopt a reduction in compliance with other infection control measures, including social distancing and hands washing.[3]

(2) Inappropriate use of face mask: people must not touch their masks, must change their single-use masks frequently or wash them regularly, dispose them correctly and adopt other management measures, otherwise their risks and those of others may increase.[3,4]

Other potential side effects that we must consider are:

(3) The quality and the volume of speech between two people wearing masks is considerably compromised and they may unconsciously come closer. While one may be trained to counteract side effect n.1, this side effect may be more difficult to tackle.

(4) Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes. This generates an uncomfortable feeling and an impulse to touch your eyes. If your hands are contaminated, you are infecting yourself.

(5) Face masks make breathing more difficult. For people with COPD, face masks are in fact intolerable to wear as they worsen their breathlessness.[5] Moreover, a fraction of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled at each respiratory cycle. Those two phenomena increase breathing frequency and deepness, and hence they increase the amount of inhaled and exhaled air. This may worsen the burden of covid-19 if infected people wearing masks spread more contaminated air. This may also worsen the clinical condition of infected people if the enhanced breathing pushes the viral load down into their lungs.

(5B) The effects described at point 5 are amplified if face masks are heavily contaminated (see point 2)

(6) While impeding person-to-person transmission is key to limiting the outbreak, so far little importance has been given to the events taking place after a transmission has happened, when innate immunity plays a crucial role. The main purpose of the innate immune response is to immediately prevent the spread and movement of foreign pathogens throughout the body.[6] The innate immunity's efficacy is highly dependent on the viral load. If face masks determine a humid habitat where the SARS-CoV-2 can remain active due to the water vapour continuously provided by breathing and captured by the mask fabric, they determine an increase in viral load and therefore they can cause a defeat of the innate immunity and an increase in infections. This phenomenon may also interact with and enhance previous points.

In conclusion, as opposed to Greenhalgh et al., we believe that the context of the current covid-19 pandemic is very different from that of the "parachutes for jumping out of aeroplanes",[7] in which the dynamics of harm and prevention are easy to define and even to quantify without the need of research studies. It is necessary to quantify the complex interactions that may well be operating between positive and negative effects of wearing surgical masks at population level. It is not time to act without evidence.

References

1 Greenhalgh T, Schmid MB, Czypionka T, et al. Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis. BMJ 2020;:m1435. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1435
2 Vu YA, London WM, Vu YA, et al. Precautionary Principle. 2013;:9780199756797-0046. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756797-0046
3 Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in healthcare settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. https://www.who.int/publications-detail/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-th...(2019-ncov)-outbreak (accessed 18 Apr 2020).
4 Desai AN, Aronoff DM. Masks and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Published Online First: 17 April 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.6437
5 Kyung SY, Kim Y, Hwang H, et al. Risks of N95 Face Mask Use in Subjects With COPD. Respir Care 2020;:respcare.06713. doi:10.4187/respcare.06713
6 Chen Y, Zhou Z, Min W. Mitochondria, Oxidative Stress and Innate Immunity. Front Physiol 2018;9:1487. doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.01487
7 Potts M, Prata N, Walsh J, et al. Parachute approach to evidence based medicine. BMJ 2006;333:701-3. doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7570.701

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Covid-19: important potential side effects of wearing face masks that we should bear in mind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dear Editor In their editorial to the BMJ,[1] Greenhalgh et al. advise that surgical masks should be worn in public to prevent some transmission of covid-19, adding that we should sometimes act without definitive evidence, just in case, according to the precautionary principle.

# data[].attributes.headline
HOUSE INTRODUCES EARN IT ACT COMPANION BILL, SOMEHOW MANAGES TO MAKE IT EVEN WORSE

# data[].attributes.subject
HOUSE INTRODUCES EARN IT ACT COMPANION BILL, SOMEHOW MANAGES TO MAKE IT EVEN WORSE

# data[].attributes.body
The house version of the EARN IT act which was introduced into the senate before. It acts as the same type of bill, but aims to make encryption even weaker than it did in the last bill. The full-court process should start early next year , so information will be sparse until then.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On September 30, Representatives Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) and Ann Wagner (R-MO) introduced the House version of the EARN IT Act ( H.R.8454), which had previously been introduced in the Senate ( S.3398) in March. This is the first significant movement on the bill since early July, when the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) unanimously passed a "manager's amendment" version of EARN IT.

I've written extensively this year about the myriad problems plaguing the EARN IT Act. Even after several rounds of changes in the Senate, it's still a terrible bill, one that threatens online speech, privacy, and cybersecurity without guaranteeing any actual improvements in child safety. Even an amendment offered by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that was supposed to protect encryption isn't all it's cracked up to be, as I explained here.

The version introduced in the House of Representatives is virtually identical to the version that passed out of the SJC. (Thanks to TechFreedom for comparing the documents, and for taking the lead pen on a coalition letter setting forth the bill's ongoing problems.) The only material change: the House version makes Leahy's encryption protections even weaker.

To recap, Leahy's amendment attempts (albeit imperfectly) to foreclose tech providers from liability for online child sexual exploitation offenses "because the provider": (1) uses strong encryption, (2) can't decrypt data, or (3) doesn't take an action that would weaken its encryption. It specifies that providers "shall not be deemed to be in violation of [federal law]" and "shall not otherwise be subject to any [state criminal charge] ... or any [civil] claim" due to any of those three grounds. Again, I explained here why that's not super robust language: for one thing, it would prompt litigation over whether potential liability is "because of" the provider's use of encryption (if so, the case is barred) or "because of" some other reason (if so, no bar).

That's a problem in the House version too (found at pp. 16-17), which waters Leahy's language down to even weaker sauce. For one thing, it takes out Leahy's section header, "Cybersecurity protections do not give rise to liability," and changes it to the more anodyne "Encryption technologies." True, section headers don't actually have any legal force, but still, this makes it clear that the House bill does not intend to bar liability for using strong encryption, as Leahy's version ostensibly was supposed to do. Instead, it merely says those three grounds shall not "serve as an independent basis for liability." The House version also adds language not found in the Leahy amendment that expressly clarifies that courts can consider otherwise-admissible evidence of those three grounds.

What does this mean? It means that a provider's encryption functionality can still be used to hold the provider liable for child sexual exploitation offenses that occur on the encrypted service - just not as a stand-alone claim. As an example, WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted (E2EE), and WhatsApp lacks the information needed to decrypt them. Under the House EARN IT bill, those features could be used as evidence to support a court finding that WhatsApp was negligent or reckless in transmitting child sex abuse material (CSAM) on its service in violation of state law (both of which are a lower mens rea requirement than the "actual knowledge" standard under federal law). Plus, I also read this House language to mean that if WhatsApp got convicted in a criminal CSAM case, the court could potentially consider WhatsApp's encryption when evaluating aggravating factors at sentencing (depending on the applicable sentencing laws or guidelines in the jurisdiction).

In short, so long as the criminal charge or civil claim against WhatsApp has some "independent basis" besides its encryption design (i.e., its use of E2EE, its inability to decrypt messages, and its choice not to backdoor its own encryption), that design is otherwise fair game to use against WhatsApp in the case. That was also a problem with the Leahy amendment, as said. The House version just makes it even clearer that EARN IT doesn't really protect encryption at all. And, as with the Leahy amendment, the foreseeable result is that EARN IT will discourage encryption, not protect it. The specter of protracted litigation under federal law and/or potentially dozens of state CSAM laws with variable mens rea requirements could scare providers into changing, weakening, or removing their encryption in order to avoid liability. That, of course, would do a grave disservice to cybersecurity - which is probably just one more reason why the House version did away with the phrase "cybersecurity protections" in that section header.

The Senate version of EARN IT has not yet been scheduled for a vote by the full Senate, and it looks unlikely to do so during the remainder of the legislative session. That's thanks in part to an anticipated hold by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who's been a vocal opponent of the bill. Coming this late in the session, then, the choice to introduce EARN IT in the House on September 30 looks less like a last-minute effort to get the bill passed this Congress, and more like a warning shot: that once the 117th Congress begins early next year, there will be a bipartisan, bicameral full-court press to push EARN IT through. Also, I wouldn't rule out the revival of the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act, the even-more-evil twin of EARN IT, born from the same father (Senator Lindsey Graham [R-SC], who's up for re-election). That bill has gone precisely nowhere, but if it became law, it would effectively ban providers like WhatsApp from offering strong encryption at all, rendering EARN IT's half-assed "protection" from liability moot.

There are multiple urgent existential issues facing America right now. It's confounding that with so many other crises going on, this is what members of Congress are deciding to spend their energy on. But we can't afford to sleep on this bill. It's still important to make your voice heard and tell your Senators and your Representative to vote "no" on the EARN IT Act. You can take action here or here. They work for you, so make sure to VOTE in the November 3 election!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
House Introduces EARN IT Act Companion Bill, Somehow Manages to Make It Even Worse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On September 30, Representatives Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) and Ann Wagner (R-MO) introduced the House version of the EARN IT Act ( H.R.8454), which had previously been introduced in the Senate ( S.3398) in March. This is the first significant movement on the bill since early July, when the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) unanimously passed a "manager's amendment" version of EARN IT.

# data[].attributes.body
How different "vapes" work and how they effect teens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What are vaping devices?

Vaping devices, also known as e-cigarettes, e-vaporizers, or electronic nicotine delivery systems, are battery-operated devices that people use to inhale an aerosol, which typically contains nicotine (though not always), flavorings, and other chemicals. They can resemble traditional tobacco cigarettes (cig-a-likes), cigars, or pipes, or even everyday items like pens or USB memory sticks. Other devices, such as those with fillable tanks, may look different. Regardless of their design and appearance, these devices generally operate in a similar manner and are made of similar components. More than 460 different e-cigarette brands are currently on the market. Some common nicknames for e-cigarettes are:

e-cigs

e-hookahs

hookah pens

vapes

vape pens

mods (customizable, more powerful vaporizers)

How do vaping devices work?

Most e-cigarettes consist of four different components, including:

a cartridge or reservoir or pod, which holds a liquid solution (e-liquid or e-juice) containing varying amounts of nicotine, flavorings, and other chemicals

a heating element (atomizer)

a power source (usually a battery)

a mouthpiece that the person uses to inhale

In many e-cigarettes, puffing activates the battery-powered heating device, which vaporizes the liquid in the cartridge. The person then inhales the resulting aerosol or vapor (called vaping).

Vaping Among Teens

Vaping devices are popular among teens and are now the most commonly used form of nicotine among youth in the United States. Some research shows that many teens do not even realize that vaping cartridges contain nicotine, and assume the pods contain only flavoring. The easy availability of these devices, alluring advertisements, various e-liquid flavors, and the belief that they're safer than cigarettes have helped make them appealing to this age group. In addition, they are easy to hide from teachers and parents because they do not leave behind the stench of tobacco cigarettes, and are often disguised as flash drives. Further, a study of high school students found that one in four teens reported using e-cigarettes for dripping, a practice in which people produce and inhale vapors by placing e-liquid drops directly onto heated atomizer coils. Teens reported the following reasons for dripping: to create thicker vapor (63.5 percent), to improve flavors (38.7 percent), and to produce a stronger throat hit-a pleasurable feeling that the vapor creates when it causes the throat to contract (27.7 percent). More research is needed on the risks of this practice.

In addition to the unknown health effects, early evidence suggests that vaping might serve as an introductory product for preteens and teens who then go on to use other nicotine products, including cigarettes, which are known to cause disease and premature death. A study showed that students who had used e-cigarettes by the time they started 9th grade were more likely than others to start smoking cigarettes and other smokable tobacco products within the next year. Another study supports these findings, showing that high school students who used e-cigarettes in the last month were about 7 times more likely to report that they smoked cigarettes when asked approximately 6 months later, as compared to students who said they didn't use e-cigarettes. Notably, the reverse was not true-students who said they smoked cigarettes were no more likely to report use of e-cigarettes when asked approximately 6 months later. Like the previous study, these results suggest that teens using e-cigarettes are at a greater risk for smoking cigarettes in the future. Another study has shown an association between e-cigarette smoking and progression to smoking actual cigarettes. This study suggests that vaping nicotine might actually encourage cigarette smoking in adolescents.

Additionally, a study of adult smokers in Europe found those who vaped nicotine were less like to have stopped smoking than those who did not. Those who used e-cigarettes also smoked more cigarettes than those who didn't. In another study of more than 800 people who said they vaped to help them quit traditional cigarette smoking, only nine percent reported having quit when asked a year later. However, more research is still needed to understand if experimenting with e-cigarettes leads to regular use of smokable tobacco.

Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations designed to protect the health of young Americans, minors can no longer buy e-cigarettes in stores or online (see "Government Regulation of E-cigarettes"). The FDA now regulates the manufacture, import, packaging, labeling, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution of e-cigarettes. This includes components and parts of e-cigarettes but excludes accessories.

Government Regulation of E-cigarettes

In 2016, the FDA established a rule for e-cigarettes and their liquid solutions. Because e-cigarettes contain nicotine derived from tobacco, they are now subject to government regulation as tobacco products. In December 2019, the federal government raised the legal minimum age of sale of tobacco products from 18 to 21 years, and in January 2020, the FDA issued a policy on the sale of flavored vaping cartridges.

How does vaping affect the brain?

The nicotine in e-liquids is readily absorbed from the lungs into the bloodstream when a person vapes an e-cigarette. Upon entering the blood, nicotine stimulates the adrenal glands to release the hormone epinephrine (adrenaline). Epinephrine stimulates the central nervous system and increases blood pressure, breathing, and heart rate. As with most addictive substances, nicotine activates the brain's reward circuits and also increases levels of a chemical messenger in the brain called dopamine, which reinforces rewarding behaviors. Pleasure caused by nicotine's interaction with the reward circuit motivates some people to use nicotine again and again, despite risks to their health and well-being.

What are the health effects of vaping? Is it safer than smoking tobacco cigarettes?

Research so far suggests that vaping devices might be less harmful than combustible cigarettes when people who regularly smoke switch to them as a complete replacement. But nicotine in any form is a highly addictive drug. Research suggests it can even prime the brain's reward system, putting vapers at risk for addiction to other drugs.

Also, e-cigarette use exposes the lungs to a variety of chemicals, including those added to e-liquids, and other chemicals produced during the heating/vaporizing process. A study of some e-cigarette products found the vapor contains known carcinogens and toxic chemicals, as well as potentially toxic metal nanoparticles from the device itself. The study showed that the e-liquids of certain cig-a-like brands contain high levels of nickel and chromium, which may come from the nichrome heating coils of the vaporizing device. Cig-a-likes may also contain low levels of cadmium, a toxic metal also found in cigarette smoke that can cause breathing problems and disease. More research is needed on the health consequences of repeated exposure to these chemicals. There are also reports of lung illnesses and deaths related to inhalation of certain vaping oils into the lungs, which have no way to filter out toxic ingredients.

Reports of Deaths Related to Vaping

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to thousands of reports of serious lung illnesses associated with vaping, including dozens of deaths. They are working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate the cause of these illnesses. Many of the suspect products tested by the states or federal health officials have been identified as vaping products containing THC, the main psychotropic ingredient in marijuana. Some of the patients reported a mixture of THC and nicotine; and some reported vaping nicotine alone. While the CDC and FDA continue to investigate possible other contributing substances, CDC has identified a thickening agent-Vitamin E acetate-as a chemical of concern among people with e-cigarette or vaping associated lung injuries. They recommend that people should not use any product containing Vitamin E acetate, or any vaping products containing THC; particularly from informal sources like friends, family, or in-person and online dealers. They also warn against modifying any products purchased in stores, or using any vaping products bought on the street. People, including health professionals, should r eport any adverse effects of vaping products. The CDC has posted an information page for consumers.

Health Effects for Teens

The teen years are critical for brain development, which continues into young adulthood. Young people who use nicotine products in any form, including e-cigarettes, are uniquely at risk for long-lasting effects. Because nicotine affects the development of the brain's reward system, continued nicotine vaping can not only lead to nicotine addiction, but it also can make other drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine more pleasurable to a teen's developing brain.

Nicotine also affects the development of brain circuits that control attention and learning. Other risks include mood disorders and permanent problems with impulse control-failure to fight an urge or impulse that may harm oneself or others.

Can vaping help a person quit smoking?

Some people believe e-cigarettes may help lower nicotine cravings in those who are trying to quit smoking. However, e-cigarettes are not an FDA-approved quit aid, and there is no conclusive scientific evidence on the effectiveness of vaping for long-term smoking cessation. It should be noted that there are seven FDA-approved quit aids that are proven safe and can be effective when used as directed.

Vaping nicotine has not been thoroughly evaluated in scientific studies. For now, not enough data exists on the safety of e-cigarettes, how the health effects compare to traditional cigarettes, and if they are helpful for people trying to quit smoking.

Points to Remember

People vape with battery-operated devices used to inhale an aerosol, which can contain nicotine, marijuana, flavorings, and other chemicals. In many e-cigarettes, puffing activates the battery-powered heating device, which vaporizes the liquid in the cartridge or reservoir. The person then inhales the resulting aerosol or vapor (called vaping).

Vaping is popular among teens. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations designed to protect the health of young Americans, minors can no longer buy e-cigarettes in stores or online.

Nicotine stimulates the adrenal glands to release the hormone epinephrine (adrenaline) and increases the levels of a chemical messenger in the brain called dopamine. Pleasure caused by nicotine's interaction with the brain's reward system motivates some people to use nicotine again and again, despite possible risks to their health and well-being.

Research so far suggests that vaping is less harmful than combustible cigarettes when people who regularly smoke switch to them as a complete replacement. But e-cigarettes can still damage a person's health.

Vaping can lead to nicotine addiction and increased risk for addiction to other drugs.

Vaping also exposes the lungs to a variety of chemicals, including those added to e-liquids, and other chemicals produced during the heating/vaporizing process.

More research is needed to determine if vaping nicotine can be as effective as smoking cessation aids already approved by the FDA.

Learn More

For more information about e-cigarettes, visit:

NIH-funded study finds teens prefer mint and mango vaping flavors (Science Spotlight, November 2019)

NIDA Live: The Science of Vaping (30:19) (September 2019)

NIDA TV Spotlight on Electronic Cigarettes

A NIDA Science Spotlight on the association between e-cigarette use and future tobacco cigarette use

the FDA's webpage, Vaporizers, E-Cigarettes, and other Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS)

the website, Know the Risks: E-cigarettes & Young People, based on the U.S. Surgeon General's Report on e-cigarette use among youth and young adults; includes various resources such as a parent tip sheet, healthcare provider conversation card, and FAQs

Notes from the Field: Use of Electronic Cigarettes and Any Tobacco Product Among Middle and High School Students - United States, 2011-2018 (MMRW) (CDC, November 2018)

References

1. Zhu S-H, Sun JY, Bonnevie E, et al. Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: Implications for product regulation. Tob Control. 2014;23 Suppl 3:iii3-iii9. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051670

2. Krishnan-Sarin S, Morean M, Kong G, et al. E-Cigarettes and "dripping" among high-school youth. Pediatrics. 2017; 139(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3224

3. Leventhal AM, Strong DR, Kirkpatrick MG, et al. Association of electronic cigarette use with initiation of combustible tobacco product smoking in early adolescence. JAMA. 2015;314(7):700-707. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.8950

4. Bold KW, Kong G, Camenga DR, et al. Trajectories of e-cigarette and conventional cigarette use among youth. Pediatrics. December 2017:e20171832. doi:10.1542/peds.2017-1832

5. Chaffee BW, Watkins SL, Glantz SA. Electronic cigarette use and progression from experimentation to established smoking. Pediatrics. March 2018:e20173594. doi:10.1542/peds.2017-3594

6. Kulik MC, Lisha NE, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes associated with depressed smoking cessation: A cross-sectional study of 28 European Union countries. Am J Prev Med. 2018;54(4):603-609. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.12.017

7. Weaver SR, Huang J, Pechacek TF, Heath JW, Ashley DL, Eriksen MP. Are electronic nicotine delivery systems helping cigarette smokers quit? Evidence from a prospective cohort study of U.S. adult smokers, 2015-2016. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(7):e0198047. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198047

8. Products C for T. Products, Ingredients & Components - Vaporizers, E-Cigarettes, and other Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS). https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/ProductsIngredientsComponents/ucm456610.htm. Accessed April 17, 2017.

9. Levine A, Huang Y, Drisaldi B, et al. Molecular mechanism for a gateway drug: Epigenetic changes initiated by nicotine prime gene expression by cocaine. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(107):107ra109. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3003062

10. Sleiman M, Logue JM, Montesinos VN, et al. Emissions from electronic cigarettes: Key parameters affecting the release of harmful chemicals. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(17):9644-9651. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b01741

11. Hess CA, Olmedo P, Navas-Acien A, Goessler W, Cohen JE, Rule AM. E-cigarettes as a source of toxic and potentially carcinogenic metals. Environ Res. 2017;152:221-225. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2016.09.026

12. U.S. Department of Health, and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease, Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth And Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General - Executive Summary.; 2016. https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/documents/2016_SGR_Exec_Summ_508.pdf. Accessed February 21, 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vaping Devices (Electronic Cigarettes) DrugFacts | National Institute on Drug Abuse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vaping devices, also known as e-cigarettes, e-vaporizers, or electronic nicotine delivery systems, are battery-operated devices that people use to inhale an aerosol, which typically contains nicotine (though not always), flavorings, and other chemicals. They can resemble traditional tobacco cigarettes (cig-a-likes), cigars, or pipes, or even everyday items like pens or USB memory sticks.

# data[].attributes.body
Scientists used ge to help better understand the very complex process of embryogenesis and identify the roots of congenital diseases that are rooted in the most formative stages of the beginning of life. Not only will this help us understand life better, but possibly in time create the perfect human. This sci fi esc theory is very out there, almost sounding like the origins of comic super villain Adam Warlock, but that just goes to show how closer and closer we are getting towards the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While movies like Jurassic World and Gattaca make the idea of editing genes seem wild and dangerous, some researchers at Hopkins have put these movie-induced fears to rest with applications for genetic engineering (which are far less likely to create dinosaurs that even Chris Pratt can't tame). One of these scientists is Reza Kalhor, an assistant professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering.

In his research, Kalhor used gene editing technology to insert snippets of genetic elements into the mouse genome. But instead of these snippets affecting the resulting phenotype - the observable characteristics resulting from genes - the snippets had the ability to record information about the cell experience. As the cell divides during embryogenesis and the zygote (the fertilized egg) becomes a developed organism, the genetic snippets in billions of the resulting cells can give us information about the events that occurred during the embryogenesis.

"We hope that in the future, this type of strategy will help us better understand the very complex process of embryogenesis and identify the roots of congenital diseases that are rooted in the most formative stages of one's life," Kalhor wrote in an email to The News-Letter.

For his newly developed technique using genetic engineering to record the events of embryogenesis, Kalhor was awarded the Packard Fellowship.

The Packard Fellowships for Science and Engineering are prestigious fellowships awarded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The fellowship funds research that philanthropists David and Lucile Packard supported in their lifetime, including climate science, reproductive health, agriculture and many others.

Kalhor is one of 20 recipients of this fellowship in 2020. He will receive $875,000 over a period of five years to continue funding this research.

Kalhor received his PhD in Molecular and Computational Biology from the University of Southern California in 2012 and completed his postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard Medical School in 2019; he then joined the Hopkins faculty in the Department of Engineering and Center for Epigenetics in 2019. He is the 15th scientist or engineer affiliated with Hopkins to receive the Packard Fellowship.

Kalhor explained that being the recipient of this fellowship will help him and his lab to further pursue research in this field that they may not be able to otherwise.

"For example, one idea that I find interesting is to expand the scope of information we record about developmental events. This will be important in making more comprehensive the story we tell about development," he wrote.

Much of the research in the Kalhor lab is devoted to developing technologies to understand development and abnormalities in development.

According to Kalhor, the lab is inspired by the complexity of the developmental process during and after embryogenesis. Some approaches frequently used in the lab include molecular biology, genomics, molecular engineering, computational biology and synthetic biology, which he is particularly interested in.

"I like to think that I am drawn by the problem; it so happens that some of the solutions we have envisioned are synthetic biological," Kalhor wrote.

Since many of the researchers in Kalhor's lab are newly minted PhD students in their training phase, adapting research in the lab to fit COVID-19 social distancing guidelines has been a challenge. As a result, Kalhor has shifted much recent lab activity toward computational research over the past several months.

While there have been challenges due to COVID-19, the lab's goal of finding creative solutions remains unchanged.

"I find it interesting when we can envision creative and effective solutions to problems we care about and work in a systematic way to implement them," he wrote.

Another field of research that the lab has taken on developing methods for in situ (direct from the cell) readouts of both DNA and RNA. This can really be a helpful tool for genetic detection and the investigation of specific cellular phenotypes inside the body.

In addition, the lab has looked into developing molecular devices for in vivo barcoding of DNA with high efficacy and fewer negative side effects. These barcodes could hopefully help to record lineage history in an organism and even dissect some of the genetic cancer biology in organisms.

Therefore, while Kalhor's research may not allow genetically engineered dinosaurs to roam the Hopkins campus anytime soon, his research will most definitely have an impact on learning about embryonic development and help to further push boundaries in the field of synthetic biology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research spotlight: Using genetic engineering to understand life's earliest stages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While movies like Jurassic World and Gattaca make the idea of editing genes seem wild and dangerous, some researchers at Hopkins have put these movie-induced fears to rest with applications for genetic engineering (which are far less likely to create dinosaurs that even Chris Pratt can't tame).

# data[].attributes.body
Because of the Me Too movement bring light onto all these problems ways like there are new methods that are being created to help deal with harassment and other problems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sexual harassment is not a thing of the past, as much as we would like to think otherwise. On a regular basis, countless women - and to a lesser extent, men - report being sexually harassed while attempting to live life normally. If there is one thing that the past few years have revealed, it's that sexual harassment is all too common in the workplace, especially within certain fields. However, though most of the major cases reported during the #MeToo movement have been confined to the entertainment industries and public spheres, workplace sexual harassment comes in many different forms, and it's treated differently by everyone, especially depending on where you live. For example, in Pennsylvania, sexual harassment is not considered a crime. Though victims of sexual harassment can file a civil claim or lawsuit against the person who sexually harassed them in the workplace, they cannot pursue criminal charges. The fact that various areas are so lax in terms of their protections means that countless women are left feeling unsafe.

Fortunately, with the law not always being a resource for women dealing with workplace sexual harassment, there are individuals taking steps to ensure that women have as many resources to fight this issue as possible. The #MeToo and Time's Up movements have been major ways in which people, especially women, have banded together to confront sexual harassment by exposing it to the public and shaming or pursuing legal actions against offenders. But there are also technological advancements being made to further the movement. One of those resources is the #NotMe app.

What Is The #NotMe App?

The #NotMe app is one of many new resources available for women facing the possibility of workplace sexual harassment, and its intention is to both help women who are currently dealing with the problem and prevent it from happening to others. The app essentially lets employees report workplace misconduct. They can choose to do so anonymously or to attach their names to the allegations. It's not meant only for those suffering from workplace sexual harassment or gender discrimination, but also for employees experiencing workplace discrimination due to their race or sexual orientations.

The app is free to use, and it can be actively offered by employers to staff. In fact, the app is not meant to give employers trouble, but rather to offer them a resource through which they can receive honest feedback about the work environments that they manage, and through which they can keep their employees as safe as possible.

Why Is It So Important For People To Have Resources Like #NotMe?

Some might argue that resources like the above-mentioned app are not truly necessary in a workplace with an open and understanding environment. After all, no workplace actively endorses sexual harassment. Isn't it safe for employees to report harassment to their employers directly?

Quite often the answer to that question is no. Workplaces must offer a good face and comply with sexual harassment laws and policies, but actually implementing their own rules is another matter entirely. Though it is illegal to fire someone because she is pregnant, for example, that hasn't stopped some employers from finding "unrelated" reasons to fire pregnant people. Furthermore, many people, especially women and people of color, find it difficult to speak up at the workplace simply because they are afraid of losing their jobs. This is especially problematic in a world in which there is currently a great deal of economic uncertainty. If you have a job as of now, you understandably want to keep it. In the past, it hasn't been uncommon for women to lose their jobs after reporting workplace sexual harassment. One of the reasons why so many people find themselves struggling with the idea of reporting workplace sexual harassment to their bosses is that it can sometimes come from the boss him or herself. When we consider the realities of the workplace, it's often easy for bosses to get away with misconduct. It's estimated right now that there are around 11 million meetings each day in the United States, often involving video conferencing, VoIP services, and similar technology. Think about how easy it would be for someone in upper management to sexually harass an employee in a private meeting and get away with it. This can not only cost a woman her job but can also potentially ruin her career in the future. Clearly, this has been seen in the entertainment industry, where many women reported having their acting careers derailed following their refusals for sexual favors to those above them at the workplace. It's important that people have the ability to report sexual harassment remotely and anonymously, which is exactly what tools like the app give them.

What Should I Do If I've Been Sexually Harassed In The Workplace?

If you've been sexually harassed in the workplace, you do have options, though they may vary depending on the severity of the harassment and where you live. But the first step for you to take is to speak with a lawyer. Right now, there are 1,315,561 lawyers in the United States, and many of them handle sexual harassment cases. The sooner you speak to an attorney, the sooner you will know what to do. There is hope and a future for you, even if something as appalling as workplace sexual harassment has occurred.

Stay updated with all the insights.
Navigate news, 1 email day.
Subscribe to Qrius

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
#NotMe App Gives Employees a Safer Way to Report Sexual Harassment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sexual harassment is not a thing of the past, as much as we would like to think otherwise. On a regular basis, countless women - and to a lesser extent, men - report being sexually harassed while attempting to live life normally.

# data[].attributes.body
"Marriage equality is now the law, but we still have a long way to go in the struggle for equal rights. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people still face discrimination — with no clear legal remedy in many states."

To read the full article please click "read more" in green.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discrimination on the basis of sex - including sexual orientation or gender identity - has no place in our nation.

# data[].attributes.body
Voters in California have passed proposition 14, which means the state can borrow $5.5 billion dollars from investors. The money will be repaid from taxpayers over a 30 year period, and this will greatly speed up the development of stem cell treatment. This was highly necessary as research being put into this topic was fairly minimal for a while, so this will be a big leap for the promising medical development. While some may argue that it's bad for the taxpayers to pay back this money, I believe it is completely ok as it is being done over a long period as to not make a noticeable difference, and the potential this money has to save lives is incredible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voters in California have approved Proposition 14, which will pump billions of dollars into the state's stem cell research program. The Associated Press called the vote on Thursday, with 51 percent of ballots for and 49 percent against.

The result will allow the state to borrow $5.5 billion from investors for its stem cell agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (). The money-which taxpayers will repay with interest over the next 30 years-will enable the institute to stay open, expand its research programs, and build new facilities.

Some $1.5 billion of the money will be spent researching conditions affecting the brain and central nervous system, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, epilepsy, and stroke.

What is stem cell research, and why is it controversial?

Unlike specialized cells-such as blood cells or bone cells-stem cells do not have a specific job. Think of them as the raw materials of our bodies. When they divide, they can either renew and make new stem cells, or turn into specialized cells.

Despite making headlines for years, stem cell research is still in its early stages, with some treatments that have appeared to have worked in animals now going into clinical trials. These include treatments for degeneration, a common cause of blindness, as well as stroke, Lou Gehrig's disease, and spinal cord injuries.

It is hoped growing stem cells into specialized cells could also one day be used to replace damaged tissue and organs, for instance by helping the pancreas produce insulin in people with diabetes.

Currently, stem bone marrow transplantation is the most common form of stem cell therapy, used to treat blood cancer patients. Stem cell therapy has also been used for grafts of corneal stem cells, as well as skin grafts for burns victims.

As well as creating treatments, stem cell research can also help scientists understand diseases. Observing the cells in a lab as they turn into specialized cells, for instance, can provide clues on how we develop certain conditions.

There are a number of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, adult stem cells tweaked to behave like embryonic stem cells, and stem cells found in the amniotic fluid and the umbilical cord of babies.

The controversy around stem cell research largely lies in the use of embryonic stem cells. These are taken from human embryos in their early stages of development. Opponents have likened this to abortion, although others disagree with this stance.

Embryonic stem cells used in research come from donations from IVF clinics, where an egg is fertilized with a sperm but not implanted into a patient because it is not needed. Embryonic stem cells are preferred over adult stem cells, as it may not be possible to specialize the latter and they are more likely to have abnormalities. But research suggests that it may be possible to turn adult stem cells into a wider range of specialized cells than previously thought, which may make them more useful.

Why was Proposition 14 initiated?

In 2001, the Bush administration banned federal funding for stem cell research. This lead real estate developer Robert N. Klein II to initiate and help fund Proposition 71 in California. The aim was to enshrine the right to carry out stem cell research in the state's constitution, and establish . Klein was motivated by his son's experience with Type 1 diabetes, and his mother's Alzheimer's diagnosis. In 2004, Californians voted in favor of the proposition.

The institute has performed 64 clinical trials, and published over 3,000 scientific articles on the subject. But 16 years after Proposition 71 passed, started to run out of funds, and stopped accepting applications for new projects last year. This prompted the Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments and Cures political action committee (PAC) to lead the campaign for Proposition 14. Klein was among its supporters, as well as California governor , LA mayor Eric , and the Michael J. Fox Foundation established by the Back to the Future actor and Parkison's disease patient who is its namesake.

On November 1, the foundation urged people via Twitter to vote in favor of Prop 14 to fund research on neurological disease. "Without this proposition vital research may come to a halt, delaying new treatments for people with," it said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As California passes Prop 14, what is stem cell research and why is it controversial?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voters in California have approved Proposition 14, which will pump billions of dollars into the state's stem cell research program. The Associated Press called the vote on Thursday, with 51 percent of ballots for and 49 percent against. The result will allow the state to borrow $5.5 billion from investors for its stem cell agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine ().

# data[].attributes.body
This article delves into the frequent arguments used for the choice to an abortion such as gender equality and the right to do as you will your own body.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article sets out the women's rights arguments that, in certain circumstances, favour abortion.

# data[].attributes.headline
My Personal Experience With Being The Only Black Student In My Class

# data[].attributes.subject
My Personal Experience With Being The Only Black Student In My Class

# data[].attributes.body
I have had this situation happen to my for a long time and it also happens with clubs. It doesn't go unnoticed that I am either the only black student, black girl student, or one of the only 2-4 black students in a class of 30 children. It's not that I dislike white people or any people, because I was raised to like everybody, but it is a sense of comfort when there is someone like me. There was a case where a black girl, Tamla Horsford, died at an all white sleepover in 2018. I was in a club and we had a field trip away from school. We separated from the teacher so I was more uncomfortable than I already was. I did not think the white girls would hurt me, but it was still an uneasy feeling. I also do not feel comfortable bringing it up in class because there are people who do not understand because they will always have somebody who looks like them nearby. The situation itself is most likely not racially motivated but it needs to be address that this is the case for many poc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Note: This post may contain affiliate links. Please see my disclosure for more details. Thanks for supporting the brands that make The Happy Arkansan possible!

I am getting my master's later today. As I begin reflecting on that journey to my MA degree, it made me think about my experience. Earlier this week I saw someone's tweet about diversity in college, and it made me think about my own experience.

When I went to college I knew I would see less black people. I came from a school with about a 60/40 mix between white and black people so it was honestly pretty mixed compared to other Arkansas cities.

Going to college was a whole other ball game though, and this was further seen when I went to get my Master's degree.

Let's chat about my personal experience being the only black student in class:

If I could describe this experience in one word, it would probably be isolating.

It's really hard to get through class when you are the only black person in the room.

Specifically because of my major. I honestly don't think I would have noticed as much if it wasn't for my major.

In case you didn't know, I went to undergrad and graduate school to get my degree in Sociology. Along with that I often took Criminology courses because they interested me, but that meant that race came up, like a lot.

We would often read articles, books, and have classroom discussions about race. It was difficult for me because I often didn't have another person of color to bounce my thoughts off. I didn't want to be seen as the sole representative of my race, and it felt like I was that way most of the time when we discussed race.

Having another person with skin like you is helpful, especially when people start spouting racist stereotypes and troupes. You can stare at them and they can stare back at you, and you know, your feelings weren't just in your head.

There were classroom experiences that happened that made me wonder...

Would the professor care this much if one of the department's only minority students weren't in the classroom right now?

Once a classroom discussion broke out in my class where we talked essentially about theories of the difference between races and whether there were actual differences between the races besides skin color.

It quickly got awkward and the professor made it more awkward (or maybe less awkward, I honestly can't tell to be honest) by cutting the conversation short and even addressing the conversation at a later date and making the whole conversation feel strange by sending out extra nonmandatory research about race and how it really doesn't affect health.

While I agreed with the professor's thought process, I also felt weird about their stance on the issue. It felt like they went out of their way to shut the conversation down and provide the research to debunk the conversation.

I then began to question the entire experience.

What if I had skipped class and didn't attend that day?

Would that professor still have done all that they did to shut the conversation down?

Did my very existence shut down that learning experience with an awkward, abrupt conversation transition?

One evening I remember clearly being ticked off by a classmate discussion. It was in a criminology course I was taking.

My white male classmate told a story of once when he feared for his life when he was driving home with another white male friend. He had gotten pulled over my a black police officer and a white police officer had recently gotten acquitted of killing a black person. He feared for his life because he and his friend thought the police officer was going to seek revenge by killing them that night.

Literally.

This was spoken during a class.

I don't think I could have rolled my eyes hard enough.

But, what do you say to that? What do you say to something so stupid without going completely off the rails?

If I remember correctly the professor did call him out for something he said that day, but I still couldn't believe what I heard that night.

That night my parents and sister heard ALL the thoughts I had about this person as I went back to my apartment after class.

Sometimes, I get angry.

One of the hardest parts of being a minority student was trying not to become a stereotype.

I didn't want to raise my voice, get too loud, or argue too much. I didn't want to be labeled just another angry black woman.

That stereotype stings. I get emotional, when you say something blatantly racist, I think I have every right to be. Alas, I can't.

I want to be taken seriously.

So, I bit my tongue. I tried my hardest to roll my eyes less. I made sure that I was soft-spoken when I disagreed. It wasn't me, but I also avoided being a stereotype.

For a large part of my graduate school experience, I helped professors grade papers. One of my jobs as a research assistant was grading discussion questions for a couple of Criminology courses both semesters of my research assistantship.

I remember that I often had to stop grading in the middle of these assignments because of the blatantly racist and often coded language people were using to talk about criminals and minorities.

I wasn't a professor so I didn't take the time to correct people. These were their opinions, it was an opinion question. I couldn't dock someone points because I didn't agree with their opinion, no matter how problematic it was. At the end of the day, I didn't feel comfortable calling these students out on their awful thoughts.

So alas, more students with awful thoughts about who criminals are, getting As and pats on the back for their opinions.

Not only that, I didn't feel comfortable letting them know how their words personally affected me.

I couldn't let them know about the times their words made me fear for the future of the relationships they would forge with the public in their jobs as police officers, military personnel, and government workers.

I wasn't able to let them know about the times their responses literally made me break down in tears while grading their opinions.

Not all opinions are valid.

I am not going to lie to you. Part of the reason that I am considering not going on to get my Ph.D. is because of the lack of diversity in my discipline, but also in other disciplines.

Why would I want to further put myself in debt if there is no real showcase of women of color in the discipline? Sure there are a couple of really cool examples of women of color in sociology, but they are few and far between. Becoming a professor, in general, is already difficult, throwing my minority status on top of that makes it next to impossible.

My colleges didn't give me shining examples of this either, to be honest.

There was only one black sociology professor at my undergraduate institution. At my graduate school institution, there were zero black sociology professors.

In fact, I only took a class with one black professor throughout my 6 years of higher education, and that professor taught an African American History class.

To be honest, my entire life as a student I can probably count on one hand the number of black teachers and professors that I have had growing up.

Five Fingers.

Last year I decided to do research about this for a research proposal in one of my classes. I wanted to see how minority professors and students faced in the world of academia, and there are many scholarly articles that say that they face a lot of scrutiny.

One of the most interesting articles I read about this was a short journal article titled "The Institutional Cost of Being a Professor of Color: Unveiling Micro-Aggression, Racial [In]visibility, and Racial Profiling through the Lens of Critical Race Theory." This article was by a professor named Pierre Wilbert Orelus and it came out in Current Issues In Education's August 2013 journal. What the author found is the minority professors they interviewed faced a lot of issues. They had to deal with students questioning their authority on their subject matter, not feeling like they fit in well with their colleagues, and just, in general, had to deal with a lot of issues in the workplace.

I'm not saying that I couldn't make it as a professor, I loved being in the classroom when I TA'd for a semester. I just don't think I have the strength to handle all the baggage that comes along with being a minority professor for too long. I am almost certain I would burn out pretty easily after dealing with that for a while.

I am not speaking for the entire black community, but there are a few things that I think will help:

Academically Calling People Out

Many black students don't want to be seen as a stereotype, so they simply won't do it themselves. If you hear someone say something in class that is blatantly racist, don't sit idly by. Academically confront them about it.

This is a dicey subject for many professors. You want to promote a healthy dialogue between students, but in my opinion, this has to stop somewhere. You simply cannot allow students to get away with everything.

Understanding You Are In A Different World

There are SO many issues that you don't feel or see on a daily basis. Just because everything is peachy for you, doesn't mean that everything is peachy for everyone. Many black students are dealing with an extra set of issues on top of the day-to-day grind of going to class every day. Respect that your experience is a lot different from mine.

When Race Comes Up, Don't Stare At Minority Students

This is the MOST obvious piece of advice, but people still don't understand this. Please stop staring at minority students when their race comes up.

Some students just don't feel comfortable discussing race in class. I used to be one of those people who would avoid talking about issues related to my race in class. Eventually, I got more comfortable with my major and those around me. That took a ton of time, though.

This is not your chance to get information about black people or any other race of people straight from the mouth of one of those people. I cannot speak for my entire race.

When you stare at me when the topic of black people comes up, it makes me feel uncomfortable. It makes me feel like I am somehow a representative of my race when I am simply not. My race is dynamic, just like every other race, and I don't want to feel like my word is given too much weight. When you stare, it makes me feel like you are giving my thoughts way too much weight in the grand scheme of things.

Understand That Affirmative Action Is Still Helpful

A lot of people talk about how much affirmative action is messing up colleges and universities, but I honestly can't tell. Many colleges are not up to par when it comes to the amount of African American students that they have on their college campuses, and they have very small amounts of faculty who are black.

For example, my alma mater UCA only has 29 faculty members who are black in the entire university. They employ over 700 faculty members. All this information was pulled from their own Minority Recruitment and Retention Report that was submitted in June, found here.

While black students can attend college more, we still have a long way to go before we are taking our rightful place as students of higher education. You can even see this in the workplace, where we need to make some serious strides.

Rolling back Affirmative Action will not help minority students in any way.

We need to keep those plans in place so that organizations are forced to consider a wide range of applicants. On top of that, we must meet students of color halfway. Make sure that they get the resources that they need to succeed and apply to higher education institutions and various jobs in academia.

I read this blog post to my mom the other day, and after she asked if I felt discriminated against. So, I thought I would clear this up here, just in case other people thought the same thing.

I don't think I felt discriminated against as much as I felt really awkward in most of these situations. Most of these comments weren't specifically aimed at me as a person, just minorities in general or black people in particular. It felt removed, but I knew that that's because I was in the classroom. In some ways it felt like I was "different" but the other minorities they didn't know were different as well. In some instances, it felt more damaging though, like while grading papers, because I was grading papers for an online course and no one had ever met me personally.

So, I don't think I feel discriminated against. Just v. awkward about all the situations that I mentioned.

I want to conclude this article by saying that these are my personal experiences. I'm hopeful that after reading this blog post, you will understand my experiences more. I hope that you will look at your classmates differently and try to understand their potential perspective.

If you have faced a similar experience I would love to hear your stories in the comments below. If you have learned something from this article, I would love to know your thoughts in the comments below.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my experiences today!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
My Personal Experience With Being The Only Black Student In Class - The Happy Arkansan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note: This post may contain affiliate links. Please see my disclosure for more details. Thanks for supporting the brands that make The Happy Arkansan possible! I am getting my master's later today. As I begin reflecting on that journey to my MA degree, it made me think about my experience.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article it talks about how the pandemic will take out women 10 years back in the workplace. experts are now saying that progress toward gender equality may be the latest in a long list of casualties of the coronavirus pandemic. Substantial research has shown that most professional gender gaps are in fact motherhood gaps: women without children are much closer to parity with men when it comes to salaries and promotions, but mothers pay a large career penalty. Women tend to take on more of the burdens of caring for children and the family. To go to work, they need someone to help with that care. Workplaces already tend to penalize women who choose to work fewer hours or need more flexibility, and that, too, is proving to be exacerbated in the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pandemic Will ‘Take Our Women 10 Years Back’ in the Workplace (Published 2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Improvements in gender equality in the workplace may be another casualty of the coronavirus, as women find their place in the work force more at risk.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article it discusses the topic of how gender inequality comes at the expense of men. Talking about how men suffer a bigger impact than women and how “men think women’s progress is negatively impacting them.” While yes I believe that all genders in the workplace have lots of different inequality issues i dont think its fair to say that men have to “suffer” more than women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nearly 30% of men say progress toward gender equality has come at their expense, according to new report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new report from Pew Research Center finds that 100 years after the 19th amendment was passed, nearly three in 10 men feel that women's equality has come at their expense.

# data[].attributes.body
Everyone loves talking about how Trump is bad, let's look at Biden. Sniffing kids, raising taxes, and his son was caught with some not-so-nice things. This man can't even form a proper speech and loses his words. He doesn't seem fit for a president at all. And I'm not saying Trump is an angel, But Biden is going to destroy this country and its economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Help continue our promise to Keep America Great!

# data[].attributes.body
This article tells you about the pollution being made by factories and more. We should find a safer way for factories to function.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When you drive by a refinery, the smell can be overwhelming. Factory pollution is often thought of as those mostly visible and smelly smokestack emissions. Industry pollutes the water and land around you as well. While you can't visibly see all pollutants, once they enter the atmosphere or the water system; they can spread far and wide beyond the factory. The most common factory air pollutants are greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. Factories contribute to water and land pollution by acidifying rain, chemical spills and disposal of toxic waste.

The most damaging greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Factory emissions contribute greatly to the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Industry and electrical generating factories contribute slightly more than 50 percent of greenhouse gases. Another harmful gas from the use of fossil fuels is sulfur dioxide, a key ingredient in the formation of acid rain. Sulfur dioxide, however, is a double-edged sword. While it contributes greatly to acid rain, its presence in the atmosphere helps cool the air to counteract the heating caused by carbon dioxide.

Another key air pollutant is ozone. Ozone is composed of three oxygen atoms, which is one more atom than needed for breathable oxygen. The third atom creates corrosive oxygen that can damage lungs. Although ozone is useful in the upper atmosphere where it blocks ultraviolet radiation from the sun, it is harmful to human health when present in large quantities in the lower atmosphere. Air pollution from factories and vehicles creates ground ozone problems, or smog, that presents significant health issues. Factories, particularly through the use of large industrial air conditioners, can also release destructive gases, contributing to the depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere where it is needed.

A particular kind of factory called an animal factory, or a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), causes a great deal of air, land and water pollution. CAFOs are highly industrialized and used to produce meat or dairy products in large quantities. These factories produce gases like methane, ammonia and others that lower air quality and are harmful to health. The animal waste that CAFOs produce often ends up in the water table, contaminating streams and lakes with harmful bacteria like E. coli. The waste can also seep into groundwater through soil when it is then utilized in farm fields as fertilizer.

Aside from animal waste from CAFO factories, industry also pollutes water sources directly through the dumping of pollutants into streams and lakes. In some countries, the dumping of hazardous waste is highly regulated, but this is not the case in much of the world. National Geographic reports that 70 percent of all industrial pollution is dumped directly into the water table, polluting drinking water. For example, textile-dye waste water produced by clothing factories is creating a major water pollution problem in China. Fortunately, filtration systems are continuously being refined to clean factory waste before it reaches the water supply.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental Pollution Caused by Factories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Factory pollution is often thought of as mostly smokestack emissions but can include acidifying rain, chemical spills, greenhouse gases and toxic waste disposal. Industry pollutes water and land as well. Once pollutants enter the atmosphere or the water system, they can spread beyond the factory.

# data[].attributes.body
This article touches base on a religious view on the death penalty. The question is, Do christians believe in the death penalty? After you reading the article I want you to ask yourself, am I christian? and do I believe in the death penalty?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
General Reference (not clearly pro or con)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stated in the "Public Issues" section of the Church's official website (accessed July 25, 2008):

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regards the question of whether and in what circumstances the state should impose capital punishment as a matter to be decided solely by the prescribed processes of civil law. We neither promote nor oppose capital punishment."
July 25, 2008 - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Assemblies of God (USA), one of the largest Pentecostal denominations in the United States, in an article on its website titled "Capital Punishment" (accessed July 28, 2008) and written by the church's General Council, stated:

"Opinion in the Assemblies of God on capital punishment is mixed. However, more people associated with the Assemblies of God probably favor capital punishment for certain types of crimes such as premeditated murder than those who would oppose capital punishment without reservation. This consensus grows out of a common interpretation that the Old Testament sanctions capital punishment, and nothing in the New Testament negates maximum punishment as society's means of dealing effectively with serious crimes...

There is room in the church for honest differences of opinion concerning the use of capital punishment. However, all believers should seek to apply biblical principles in reaching their conclusions."
July 28, 2008 - Assemblies of God (USA)

Billy Graham, Evangelist and Chairman of the Board of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA), in an article titled "The Power of the Cross," published in the Apr. 2007 issue of Decision magazine wrote:

"To gain a clear understanding of God's attitude toward sin, we only have to consider the purpose of Christ's death. The Scripture says, 'Without shedding of blood there is no remission' (Hebrews 9:22). Here is a positive statement that there can be no forgiveness of sin unless our debt has been paid.

God will not tolerate sin. He condemns it and demands payment for it. God could not remain a righteous God and compromise with sin. His holiness and His justice demand the death penalty."

[Editor's Note : A plain reading of the quote may suggest that Mr. Graham's quote above is pro death penalty; however, ProCon.org was advised by Mr. Stephen Scholle, General Counsel of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Organization and an authorized spokesperson for Mr. Graham, that such a reading would be inaccurate. To read Mr. Scholle's explanation for greater clarity on this topic, click on Billy Graham's biography below.]
Apr. 2007 - Billy Graham

PRO (yes)

Pro

Southern Baptist Convention, in a June 13-14, 2000 meeting in Orlando, Florida, approved a resolution that stated:

"Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention...support the fair and equitable use of capital punishment by civil magistrates as a legitimate form of punishment for those guilty of murder or treasonous acts that result in death."
June 13-14, 2000 - Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)

Pro

Carl F. H. Henry, ThD, PhD, an American evangelical Christian theologian and the first editor-in-chief of the magazine Christianity Today, in his 1988 book Twilight of a Great Civilization, wrote:

"The rejection of capital punishment is not to be dignified as a 'higher Christian way' that enthrones the ethics of Jesus. The argument that Jesus as the incarnation of divine love cancels the appropriateness of capital punishment in the New Testament era has little to commend it. Nowhere does the Bible repudiate capital punishment for premeditated murder; not only is the death penalty for deliberate killing of a fellow human being permitted, but it is approved and encouraged, and for any government that attaches at least as much value to the life of an innocent victim as to a deliberate murderer, it is ethically imperative."
1988 - Carl F. H. Henry, ThD, PhD

CON (no)

Con

The Catholic Church, in the June 21, 2001 "Declaration of the Holy See to the First World Congress on the Death Penalty," wrote:

"The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty...

Where the death penalty is a sign of desperation, civil society is invited to assert its belief in a justice that salvages hope from the ruin of the evils which stalk our world. The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity."
June 21, 2001 - Catholic Church

Con

The United Church of Christ, in its July 1999 Twenty-Second General Synod resolution "Call for Abolition of the Death Penalty," stated:

"WHEREAS, Jesus challenged the death penalty of his culture, calling on those without sin to cast the first stone..."
July 1999 - United Church of Christ (UCC)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does Christianity Support the Death Penalty? - Death Penalty - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stated in the "Public Issues" section of the Church's official website (accessed July 25, 2008): "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regards the question of whether and in what circumstances the state should impose capital punishment as a matter to be decided solely by the prescribed processes of civil law.

# data[].attributes.body
Stepping away from politics and very controversial topics, the Playstation 5 has released. This article gives you some details. I believe this is better than XBOX. The new XBOX has been catching fire and frying. Is there really a debate here?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The PS5 continues to impress with its revolutionary controller, blazing-fast load times and exclusive games

# data[].attributes.body
this article contains a opinion to why you should support the police. It has several reasons and examples. During this day and time the police are more disrespected than ever. The police are in charge of protecting the city and community in which you live. I mean sure it is ok to not agree with police actions and in the case of george floyd it is completely unacceptable. But tat was only a bad act done by a few cops. The main point is to give the police a little thanks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On March 22, Wisconsin received another reminder of why it is so important to support our police. Detective Jason T. Weiland, of the Everest Metropolitan Police Department, was killed in the line of duty by a gunman. Weiland served for 18 years, 15 years of which were with the EMPD. Weiland was a 40-year-old husband and father of two. On April 11, Wisconsin lost another officer in a car crash.

Anthony J. Borostowski was killed when his squad car left the roadway and struck a tree. Trooper Borostowski was a recipient of the Wisconsin State Patrol's lifesaving award for performing CPR on a man, saving his life. He also enlisted in the Wisconsin Army National Guard and served our country overseas. Borostowski received several awards during his military service including the Combat Action Badge, Army Commendation Medal, two Army Achievement Medals, Iraqi and Afghanistan Campaign Medals, the Humanitarian Service Medal, and the Drill Sergeant's Badge, among many others.

Devastating loss follows both of these tragedies. Wisconsin lost two diligent public servants, their communities lost their protectors, and their families lost their loved ones. These two will be deeply missed, and their lives will be remembered. This is another reminder of how much our men and women in blue sacrifice to serve their communities. They get up every day to go work a job where they are not always appreciated. Their everyday routine involves putting on bullet-proof vests and gun belts. When they are performing a "routine" traffic stop, that traffic stop could easily turn into an emergency situation.

Police officers see the absolute worst of society; they see the terrible crashes, crimes committed and disasters. When catastrophe hits, they don't get to run away from the danger, they end up running right toward it to protect others. They don't work a regular shift like much of working America; oftentimes their shift doesn't end until crises cease. They get called into work at all hours, and they cannot ignore the call because the community cannot go without protection.

Even when they aren't on duty, police officers are always some of the first to respond to emergencies when they are simply going about their daily lives. While other Americans spend the holidays with their families, our men and women in uniform don't always get to take the day off. They say goodbye to their families each day like everyone else, except they don't know for sure if they will make it home. Some of these men and women end up giving their lives protecting their communities from harm, giving the ultimate sacrifice to the profession of law enforcement.

These sacrifices often go ignored and under appreciated. Law enforcement and first responders are truly some of the most honorable members of society. Their dedication to serve their communities regardless of the cost is one of the most admirable actions that one could take. They bravely serve their communities day after day, often without receiving any form of a "thank-you."

Next time you come across a police officer, a firefighter, an EMT, or any other public servant, I sincerely encourage you to thank them for their service and their sacrifice. Our first responders are of a different breed, constantly putting the needs of others above themselves. Because of them, lives have been saved, our communities are safer, and we always have someone to call in times of need.

I was blessed enough to be raised by two police officers. Growing up in a blue home made me a much stronger individual and helped me to understand the challenges that our communities face. My heroes were not some abstract people that I had never met; my heroes were the parents tucking me in every night. I spent much of my childhood witnessing the daily sacrifices that my parents made.

There were times when my dad's usual 12-hour shift would turn into a 17-hour shift. My dad remembers describing to a drunk driver in the backseat of his police car one Halloween that he had a "pissed off piglet" at home because he would not be able to go trick-or-treating with me due to this person driving drunk. I remember my dad walking through our front door one day covered in blood because he performed CPR on a woman who was in a particularly bad car crash.

He came in, quickly showered, and then headed back to work. My mom began in law enforcement when it was not easy to be a female police officer. My mother was the first female police officer in the city of Green Lake, and the second in the county overall. She was often told that she didn't have much authority on account of her being female, but she didn't let that stop her from doing her job. In her time as a law enforcement officer, she started a community service program, started a bible study program, and she worked to rehabilitate inmates through an electronic monitoring program.

Today, both of my parents are retired from their duties as police officers. After 25 years in law enforcement, my mother moved to a position where she is no longer in uniform. After 30 years of service, my father recently retired from law enforcement as well. I am so thankful that both of my parents were able to leave their professions relatively unscathed. While my parents no longer wear the badge, my heart still goes out to those who are still serving their communities and putting on the badge every day. After witnessing what it was like to wear the badge firsthand, I have a deep appreciation for those who are serving our communities today.

We now live in a world in which wearing the badge can get you killed, which is a very sad reality. For the past three years, around 150 police officers per year have been killed in the line of duty. If this trend continues, 150 officers will not make it home to their families this year. One hundred and fifty communities will mourn the death of a citizen who went beyond a normal call to serve. These statistics are not only sobering, but should be a constant reminder to thank and support our police officers and first responders. A great majority of our men and women in uniform truly want to serve their communities and make them safer for us all. This is often sadly forgotten.
Emelia Rohl is a junior majoring in journalism and mass communications. She is the communications director for the UW College Republicans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why it's so important we support our police

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On March 22, Wisconsin received another reminder of why it is so important to support our police. Detective Jason T. Weiland, of the Everest Metropolitan Police Department, was killed in the line of duty by a gunman. Weiland served for 18 years, 15 years of which were with the EMPD.

# data[].attributes.body
This article just shows how violent these protests can be. The protests have gotten to where no one can respect anothers opinion and it is just unethical and dumb.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Civil unrest continued in Portland on Saturday as a "Back the Blue" rally turned into a violent clash between white nationalists and anti-racism protesters-all while police officers stood back and watched the show.

On Saturday afternoon, a large crowd of more than 100 far-right activists, including Proud Boys and armed militia members, descended on Portland, Ore., staging a "Back the Blue" rally in front of the Justice Center that houses the downtown police precinct. Hundreds of antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters gathered to oppose the far-right crowd.

People in the far-right crowd came armed with paintball guns, metal rods, aluminum bats, fireworks, pepper spray, rifles and handguns. Some people in the opposing left-leaning crowd brought rocks, fireworks and bottles filled with chemical solutions. Both crowds sported shields and helmets.

The two groups sparred for more than two hours, as people exchanged blows, fired paintballs at each other and blasted chemicals indiscriminately into the crowd. People lobbed fireworks back and forth. At least one person was hit in the abdomen with a device that flashed and exploded, causing bleeding.

While the two groups reenacted the opening scene from Gangs of New York, police officers stood on the sidelines eating popcorn because they know that, due to the pandemic, this might be the last 3D movie they get to watch in a very long time-either that or they just didn't feel like working that day.

"Each skirmish appeared to involve willing participants and the events were not enduring in time, so officers were not deployed to intervene," the Portland Police Bureau said in a statement. (So violence in Portland is OK by police now as long as everyone involved consented to beating the shit out of each other...got it.)

According to the Post, police officers who were at the scene responded to the unfolding violence by repeatedly announcing over a loudspeaker that citizens should "self-monitor for criminal activity," and they continued issuing that order even as crowd members started beating each other with sticks and brandishing firearms.

More from the Post:

Police said they did not stop the violence, although the event met the criteria to be declared a riot, because too few officers were available to respond and they deemed it too dangerous to intervene. Officers were tired from responding to a much smaller and less volatile protest that was declared a riot the night before, the bureau said in a statement, and incident commanders also had concerns that officers would be targeted by the crowd.

"PPB members have been the focus of over 80 days of violent actions directed at the police, which is a major consideration for determining if police resources are necessary to interject between two groups with individuals who appear to be willingly engaging in physical confrontations for short durations," the bureau said in a statement. "While the activity in the group met the definition of a riot, PPB did not declare one because there were not adequate police resources available to address such a declaration."

So police officers said, "nah" to doing their jobs either because they were too tired from stopping a small, not-really-all-that-violent protest from the night before because they were afraid of being targeted for violence...at a "Back the Blue" rally; or because it was simply too dangerous for police intervention.

What happened to all that "cops are heroes and should be respected because they put their lives on the line every day" energy? Portland police officers certainly don't have the same hands-off attitude towards Black Lives Matter protests, which they essentially declare all-out war on the second the property damage begins.

It's worth mentioning that exactly one week before Saturday's violent clash, another far-right extremist rally in Portland ended with gunshots.

Anyway, after roughly two hours of the worst West Side Story reboot ever, the "Back the Blue" rally goers "retreated to their cars" and the counter-protesters "followed them as they moved through downtown to a parking garage a few blocks away," after which the two groups resumed throwing rocks at each other and "exchanged more pepper spray," the Post reports.

Join the discussion! The Root is hosting its first-ever, virtual Root Institute , presented by Target, featuring several of the leading minds in our community talking about politics, culture, health, community building and social impact. Subscribe for updates today !

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Portland 'Back the Blue' Rally Erupts in Violence. Police Stand and Watch Because Fights Involved 'Willing Participants'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Civil unrest continued in Portland on Saturday as a "Back the Blue" rally turned into a violent clash between white nationalists and anti-racism protesters-all while police officers stood back and watched the show.

# data[].attributes.headline
Police are don't care about the protests

# data[].attributes.subject
Police are don't care about the protests

# data[].attributes.body
This article states the opinion of a police officer who states that he supports all protests. He doesn't mind people speaking their mind and saying what they think should be addressed but when there is any sort of violence occurring during a protest then it is unnacceptable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Security guarded the Back The Blue rally entrance Sunday as Black Lives Matter counter protesters hovered nearby. Inside Park in Bloomington, hundreds of people gathered for what was billed as a simple "thank you" to local law enforcement.

At the podium was Wendy Carlton, a mother of five and wife of Bloomington Police Sgt. Ty Carlton, who has been an officer for 17 years. Carlton's 5-year-old boy hopes to follow in his dad's footsteps into law enforcement. Her two daughters also were in attendance to support their dad.

Carlton reflected on how there is never a day that goes by that she doesn't pray for her husband's safe return home.

"When he left the week we were having the looting in early June, he made sure I was comfortable handling our firearms in our home," said Carlton. "I know he was scared as to what people would do to his family while he was working."

Sunday's rally unfolded in the wake of another police shooting of a Black man in America-Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wis. Many counter protesters chanted Blake's name just outside the gates at GE Park on Sunday.

Carlton thinks Americans have the right to say what they want to say and respond the way they want to respond. As far as the protests happening in Kenosha and right outside the gates of GE Park, Carlton said she doesn't believe it is acceptable to cause violence toward police officers.

"It's not OK to spit, throw body fluids or frozen ice water bottles, but it is absolutely the right of every American to state how they feel. If they feel discriminated against, if they feel supported, I completely support them (the counter protesters) for wanting to say their part and be heard," said Carlton. "This is not a protest. This is completely a rally. We are only here to tell our officers, 'Thank you for doing your job. We know that you have a lot of hard decisions to make and a lot of split decisions to make, and we understand you are scrutinized against big time.'"
High-profile attendees
Among those in the crowd was Republican state Reps. Darren Bailey and Dan Brady, former Illinois House candidate David Paul Blumenshine, and Normal City Council member Stan Nord.

Bailey, from southern Illinois, drove to the McLean County's Back the Blue rally after attending one in Charleston on Saturday. He has emerged this summer as one of Gov. JB Pritzker's chief critics over his handling of the pandemic.

Bailey said our country's freedoms were established nearly 250 years ago by putting everything on the line. He said it is a "shame that we find ourselves on the cusp of losing those very freedoms" and encouraged everyone to know who they are voting for and to register to vote.

"It is time to hold our governor in check and to stop this nonsense," said Bailey, adding if he were to get pulled over, he doesn't care what race the officer is.

"If he wants to see my driver's license, I totally understand that. They (police) have to understand and start at a point of knowing who I am," said Bailey. "And to sit there and say, 'I don't have to, or I'm not going to' is wrong, and that leads up to what we are seeing."

Brady said it is important to show support for local law enforcement.

"Right here in McLean County we have a great relationship between groups like the NAACP and law enforcement. We cooperate, we work together. However, that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement," he said. "I think anyone would tell you that everyone has the right to protest, peacefully. I think the principles of charity, justice and brotherly love is what we need to focus on."

Gearing up for the election, Brady said he is trying to treat everyone with mutual respect despite political differences.

"I think, overall, the common goal is for the common good. That's for this community, my district I represent and the people I represent. I continue to work hard, by staying in touch with those people, staying grounded, focused and delivering constituent services," said Brady.
Why they came
Janet Mohrman and her husband came to Sunday's rally in their red "Make America Great Again" hats. Like most in the crowd Sunday, they were not wearing a face mask.

"We wanted to show the police force that they are not forgotten. Sure, there's a few bad apples everywhere, in every profession, but for the most part in Bloomington-Normal the police do an exemplary job keeping us safe," said Mohrman. "We wanted to show them that we care."

One of the rally's organizers, Becky Swan, explained her support for law enforcement. Swan's husband is a Marine, and she comes from a long line of military on her father's side. Her biggest reason: her daughter has bipolar disorder and was saved by local law enforcement.

"Normal PD and BPD saved our daughter last year on several occasions and in several places in our community. Because of them and our EMT, our daughter got the treatment she needed and is thriving today," said Swan.

Also in the crowd, waving an American flag and wearing a "Trump 2020" T-shirt, was Mark Kaphaem of Bloomington-Normal. He said he believes that without support from the community, law enforcement many dwindle down to nothing.

"They really need to know our support in order to do their job, because they're a small minority of the population. They need to know their communities are thankful for them, nobody wants them to be on the defense," said Kaphaem.

He said he has close friends who are Black, but he is worried people are going to see violence on YouTube of Black people harassing white people and they're going to "retaliate" against his friends.

"I live in a community that has all different cultures, all different races and I am continually having beautiful conversations and smiling. I see love everywhere," said Kaphaem. "There's a small minority that is stealing the narrative."

Kaphaem suggested sending police on retreats where positivity can be expressed and where they can get away and refresh. An example would be a police seminar where officers could express what is like to serve the community.

"Where they could freely talk about the things they face and how they deal with it, and get support. The people who want to defund the police are criminals," said Kaphaem.

The Trump supporter said it will make all the difference for local law enforcement to know their chief is going to have their backs.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Curran was the rally's closing speaker. He leaned into the podium and said, "There is law enforcement that protects us from evil. That's the thin blue line folks. They're the thin blue line that keeps us safe. You folks get it. Some of those folks on the outside don't."

Curran suggested the crowd bow their heads in prayer for the "folks who don't get it" and ask God to soften their hearts.

"We ask that you soften the hearts of the people out there that are filled with hatred for law enforcement, our country and our president," said Curran.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Back The Blue Rally: 'They Protect Us From Evil'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Security guarded the Back The Blue rally entrance Sunday as Black Lives Matter counter protesters hovered nearby. Inside Park in Bloomington, hundreds of people gathered for what was billed as a simple "thank you" to local law enforcement. At the podium was Wendy Carlton, a mother of five and wife of Bloomington Police Sgt.

# data[].attributes.headline
Protests are heading in the wrong direction

# data[].attributes.subject
Protests are heading in the wrong direction

# data[].attributes.body
The back the blue protests have been going off track of what they are meant to be. they are no longer about simply supporting the police but more of a targeting system for poitical standpoints

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My name is Ray Christian; my wife, Tiffany, and I have lived in the community for 17 years and raised 6 children here. My wife previously taught at App State as well and now works for a local business. I have taught as an adjunct professor for App State for just as long and prior to that I served 20 years in the US Army as an infantryman and paratrooper. Moreover, we are one of the few Black families in the county not from Junaluska.

I would like to bring to your attention my concern and distress over the upcoming "Back the Blue" protest scheduled for July 18 in Boone, N.C. My concern is despite the organizers' insistence to the contrary, this "protest" appears to be political, targeted and in direct response to previous protests/events, most notably the two peaceful protests in Boone led by the Black community. The previous events were graciously supported, respected and empathized with by our local law enforcement. However, I believe this upcoming event has an agenda that goes far beyond simply showing support for law enforcement.

The organizations sponsoring the events and providing speakers include Citizens for America Foundation, a conservative political action group with a clear agenda in opposition to the current social movement for appropriate and consistent accountability for police who use unnecessary, and often deadly, force against Black people. Return America a religious political action group with an expressed anti-gay agenda. BLEXIT is a Conservative political action group veiled as a general Black interest organization, but has no real affiliations or credibility in the local or larger Black American community. Their co-founder, Candace Owens, has publicly stated that the Black Lives Matter movement is irrelevant and wrong and has publicly dismissed the death of George Floyd and minimized his life as being nothing more than that of a criminal, and asserting her support of police over the right of a Black suspect to be handled humanely by law enforcement so that he can have his day in court just as White suspects do.

My concern is that our local law enforcement is inadvertently providing the appearance of complicity with an event organized by groups whose agenda is overly counter the current focus on protecting Black people for brutality and LGBTQ rights. I have no objection to law enforcement doing their jobs and providing security and traffic control as a matter of public safety, but this event seems to imply that law enforcement is participating. If you look into the agendas and schedules speakers, complicity with this event only increases the current atmosphere of fear and suspicion of law enforcement.

Let me be clear: This is not an objection to free speech! I risked my life to protect our freedoms even when I don't agree. However, my concern is that this is a counter protest with a clear political agenda that is luring in and implying law enforcement involvement under the cloak of "prayer." Most of the invited speakers (and the organizations they represent) have a history of making homophobic slurs, supporting anti-gay legislation and discrimination, and some have openly expressed indifference to the killings of Blacks by law enforcement.

What does it do for the cause of unity in our community for people of color and the LGBTQ community to see our law enforcement officers clapping and applauding speakers who profess the idea that Black complaints are exaggerated, the death of George Floyd is nothing and that gay people are going to hell? How does this build confidence in law enforcement or departmental morale if we allow them to pit officers against each other and the community?

As small as our community is, our law enforcement is composed of varied racial/ethnic identities and sexual preferences. How does it impact those officers to see their peers and/or superiors involved in and supporting (beyond the public safety responsibilities of their jobs) an event hosting by and promoting political and social agendas that do not support them? I believe that the active participation by law enforcement will be a dangerous setback to the community relations and undo all the goodwill that has been previously expressed and valued.

Please consider the possibility that our local police officers could be used for political purposes. We have Black law enforcement officers in our community and others of us have friends and family that are part of the law enforcement community. We love them and support them in the just and legal execution of their oath to protect and serve. But this protest is set to question that love and support and question the motives of Black protesters by intertwining, religion, politics and support for law enforcement. This only serves to further divide the community.

The press release for this event states that many officers have communicated with the organizers and support this event. If true, this would be disturbing to know that our law enforcement is supporting a political event, which seeks to connect church and state by suggesting officers wear their uniform as they participate. It is inappropriate for off-duty officers to attend in uniform or for our law enforcement agencies to support this event outside the scope of their duty to protect and serve.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Your view: 'Back the Blue' event raises concerns, distress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My name is Ray Christian; my wife, Tiffany, and I have lived in the community for 17 years and raised 6 children here. My wife previously taught at App State as well and now works for a local business.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why the back the blue act shouldn't be further pushed

# data[].attributes.subject
Why the back the blue act shouldn't be further pushed

# data[].attributes.body
This day and time in society has caused turmoil in many communities between the black lives matter protesters and the police. The back the blue act can take a turn for the worse and cause people to hate police even more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Unfortunately, I know the pain of losing a close comrade to street violence as well as anyone. During my 34-year police career in Maryland, I lost my close friend, Corporal Ed Toatley, and numerous other friends who wore the blue. Today, as Executive Director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, I remain committed to improving safety for my fellow police officers. For that reason, I oppose the "Back the Blue Act" introduced by Sen. John Cornyn Ted Poe Lloyd (Ted) Theodore Poe Sheila Jackson Lee tops colleagues in House floor speaking days over past decade Senate Dem to reintroduce bill with new name after 'My Little Pony' confusion Texas New Members 2019 MORE (R-Texas). John Cornyn Top Republicans signal support for CIA director amid talk of her possible ouster Senate Republicans urge Trump to go all-in on Georgia Pence doesn't provide evidence of voter fraud in meeting with GOP senators MORE (R-Texas) and Rep.

The Back the Blue Act would make any assault on an officer a federal crime with a mandatory minimum sentence. But here's the thing: assaulting a police officer is already a crime in every state and already carries strict penalties set by local legislatures. My colleagues and I know that legislation intended to increase safety can in fact have the opposite result for officers on the street. Back the Blue would not deter individuals from assaulting police just by making a federal case out of these attacks. Instead, the bill would make us less safe and less effective by worsening what is already the greatest threat to policing today: the downward spiral of police-community relations.

Any time I made a stop in a new or high-crime neighborhood, I had to be on guard, knowing that it could quickly escalate to an assault on me.

Not because some individual didn't fear the consequences of assaulting us, but because in the heat of the moment, all that person's fear, hostility, and anger toward the police could explode into one terrible decision.

Arbitrary mandatory sentences don't deter these emotional reactions. What kept me safe was not any particular law but rather the trust, respect, and relationships that my fellow officers and I were able to build in the community. Unfortunately, this well-intentioned bill has already deepened an us-versus-them mentality across the country in high-crime minority communities, precisely where police need community support the most.

Back the Blue is a divisive bill that would decrease public safety by making police less effective. The more these communities see police as untrustworthy outsiders with special status, the harder it is to find witnesses to cooperate with police investigations. Officers already struggle to solve crimes because many community members refuse to speak to the police out of distrust or fear of retaliation. There is no question that Back the Blue would further reduce this cooperation, leaving dangerous criminals on the loose in communities too afraid to report them.

Back the Blue would divert federal resources from stopping the most complex and serious crimes. Federal prosecutors take on international child trafficking and money laundering rings, corrupt public officials, and other cases that are too complex, challenging, far-reaching, or sensitive for state and local prosecutors. While assault on an officer is a serious crime, it is a crime that can be easily handled by state and local prosecutors working with existing state laws. We should not remove federal prosecutors from high-level cases to duplicate the work of these local experts. It is insulting to state and local law enforcement, and it diverts federal prosecutors from public safety threats that only they can tackle.

Finally, our Founding Fathers saw the wisdom of letting states police, prosecute, and decide their own sentences for local crimes. Back the Blue would take away local authority by requiring the use of new mandatory minimum sentences created by politicians in Washington. It would replace case-by-case decisions made by local judges, reflecting the community's values, with one-size-fits-all sentences. In order to preserve the power and discretion of our local judges, we must oppose Back the Blue.

My colleagues and I appreciate support of police officers and public safety, but we are safer if Congress rejects this counterproductive bill.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
For the sake of police, don't back the Back the Blue Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unfortunately, I know the pain of losing a close comrade to street violence as well as anyone. During my 34-year police career in Maryland, I lost my close friend, Corporal Ed Toatley, and numerous other friends who wore the blue.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the second of my two visual sources. This article includes graphs which prove the increase wealth, health, and happiness of citizens in more socialist leaning countries.
“Socialist believe that society’s means of production should serve everyone”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The left, right, and center disagree on the merits of socialism. But these disagreements are often impenetrable, as they rarely even agree which countries are socialist. Socialist-skeptics point to Venezuela as an example of socialism run amok, while socialists point to the Nordics as evidence of its virtues. To counter the obvious success of the Nordics, some will define them as actually capitalist. The capitalism-or-socialism binary gets further complicated as debaters introduce terms like "welfare state capitalism," "social democracy," "democratic socialism," "state capitalism," "state socialism," and more. This debate doesn't get any clearer among self-identified socialists, as many have their own pet definitions. With such barriers in the discourse, how can we possibly measure how people experience socialism?

Instead of cramming countries into a discrete buckets of "socialism" or "capitalism," it's better to view countries as bundles of institutions. Those institutions can operate along a socialist-capitalist spectrum, and exist with other institutions that fall elsewhere. This approach forces us to consider which institutions are most relevant and how they can best be measured to capture the differences between socialism and capitalism. Once we have a pliable measurement, we can then see whether people in socialist societies can be happy - or destined to a life of misery.

Controlling and Owning the Means of Production

The clearest divide between capitalism and socialism is over the "means of production" and who controls and owns it. Defenders of capitalism believe the means of production should be in the hands of private actors - even if they are just a cabal. Socialists, though, believe the means and fruits of production belong to all. So which institutions equally share control and ownership of society's resources and processes?

The most straightforward measurement is direct ownership of firms. States of all types can and do run "state-owned enterprises," with full control over the firm's operations, while receiving all of its profits. States can also have partial ownership and control, or just run a diverse portfolio of financial instruments in sovereign wealth funds. These institutional forms combine, in addition to public debt, to create public wealth. The amount of public wealth relative to private wealth in a society is thus one good proxy for its degree of socialism.

Private firms and individuals don't just produce stuff and get financial returns. They also sell those goods and services to customers, and give wages and income to workers. States bypass this role of private actors by directly giving income, goods, and services to its citizens: roads, education, health care, retirement income, unemployment income, public employment income, etc. To fund this (or in MMT terms, to offset inflationary pressures), the government requires taxes from private corporations and individuals.

There isn't a conceptual bright line between state ownership of firms and funds, and government departments and budgets, but firms and funds tend to operate more in markets, whereas government departments and budgets do more non-market activities.

So far, I've focused on the relationship between private actors and the state. But a big state role in the economy is no guarantee that society's resources will be equitably shared or its processes will accurately reflect the will of the people - for that, what's needed is a strong democracy. This reasoning is why so many socialists are prefixing it with "democratic." Democracy is a key element of the socialist project, and differentiates it from the institutional character of states like Venezuela, China, and the former Soviet Union. These countries undeniably feature strong roles of the government in the economy, but because they lack democratic legitimacy, they do not serve the will of society.

The final institutions that determine the degree of socialism are the organization of workers. Of any distinct group in society, the working class is the largest and has the closest and most tangible ties to the means of production. Thus, when properly organized, they have the power to force either private or state owners of the means of production to respect their democratic rights at the worksite or in society at large, and to more equitably share the gains of production.

What does "properly organized" look like? Independent trade unions (that is, they can't be absorbed by the company or the government), sector wide bargaining regimes, worker co-ops, and worker representation on the board (co-determination). Organized workers is another area where Venezuela, China, and the former USSR fall short and limit their degree of socialism.

Democratic Socialism Score

With that four-part institutional breakdown as my guide, and inspired by Nathanial Lewis's "scale of socialism," I used data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Inequality Database, and Freedom House to build a "Democratic Socialism Score" for a variety of countries. Due to the limits of their databases, I could only score 36 countries. I would love to apply this score to all countries, but the data limits can't be avoided.

The score derives from four components, with each made up of several subcomponents. The "State Ownership Score" combines data on the market value of State-Owned Enterprises relative to the overall economy, the share of government financial assets as a percentage of GDP, and the share of total public wealth as a share of total overall wealth. The "Public Goods and Welfare Score" combines government expenditures on welfare transfers, education, housing, etc. as a share of GDP. The "Democracy Score" simply comes from Freedom House's "Freedom Ratings." And the "Union Score" combines the percent of the workforce who are members of unions and the percent who are covered by collectively bargained contracts. To appropriately average these scores into a single overall score, I converted them into "standardized t-scores."

Now that we have a way to approximate the degree of socialism in countries, we can see how socialism correlates with important indicators of the population's quality of life. By looking at actual life outcomes across countries, we can see whether it's justified to argue that socialism is incompatible with living the good life. If we find that more socialist countries are more productive or healthier than capitalist ones, that's not proof that socialism causes such outcomes-but it does offer a hint. And more importantly, if we find correlations that move in the opposite direction of what a capitalism-booster would argue, it's powerful evidence against the idea that capitalism has unique features that lead to prosperity.

Making Money

Socialist-skeptics usually argue that socialist societies cannot keep pace with capitalism's capacity to efficiently produce goods and services. Does this claim hold up?

The claim does not hold up. While there is a lot of variance around the trendline (r^2=0.29), the trend goes in the opposite direction of what the skeptics would argue. Our No. 1 Democratic Socialist country, Norway, has the third highest productivity per hour behind only the two tax-haven countries (Ireland and Luxembourg). Other socialist-leaning countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Finland score high as well. So it's fair to say that socialism does not hinder productivity - if anything, it helps.

Raw productivity is important, but how that productivity is distributed matters for people's actual experience. Since most people earn a living by working, the share of national income going to the labor force matters, as does its distribution within the labor force.

Here we find that workers in most socialist countries earn high incomes per hour worked - comparable to the United States. But we also find that equality among workers is much higher in the more socialist countries. In such countries, earnings are compressed between the top and the bottom, and between genders.

While the working class is large and important, non-workers are almost as large. And all workers are at some point unable or unwilling to work, and non-workers depend on workers' income. That dependence can be a parent caring for a child or an aging relative, or payroll taxes funding insurance for unemployment or disability. So instead of focusing on the earnings of workers, let's expand to look at household disposable income. That is, income after taxes and transfers from workers, owners, and non-workers.

A similar trend emerges. Typical households in more socialist countries have high disposable incomes, while also compressing the differences between top and bottom households, with some of the lowest poverty gaps on record. Socialist countries being more equal is not surprising, but the point is emphasized in the following graph:

The five countries with the five highest socialism scores also have the five highest economic equality scores. The economic equality score derives from an average (using standardized scores) of earnings ratios between the 90th and 10th deciles, the gender wage gap, the total poverty gap, post-tax-and-transfer gini coefficients, disposable income ratios between the 90th and 10th deciles, and the share of wealth from the top 1 percent.

While flows of income are important, the ability for people to save and earn wealth also matters. Do socialist societies limit this ability?

Wealth data across countries is harder to get, but the data we have does not support the idea that socialism impedes accumulating wealth for the typical household. The median household in Norway, Finland, and Belgium all have more net-wealth than the United States.

Being Relaxed and with Family

Our purpose isn't just to work and earn money, but to enjoy our limited time being alive. The 19th-century labor movement put it this way: "Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, and eight hours for what you will."

More socialist countries also enjoy a lot of paid time off. This comes in the form of paid annual leave, public holidays, and paid maternity and paternity leave. The "Leisure Scores" averages (using standardized scores) these forms of paid time off, along with hours worked per worker, and self-reported "leisure and self-care" time.

Being Healthy

In addition to earning money and time off, our ability to enjoy any of it depends on our health and the health of those we love. To measure the health in society, I created another encompassing measurement, derived from life expectancy, maternal mortality rates, neonatal mortality rates, and infant mortality rates.

Socialist countries are also healthy. They have long life expectancies, with low maternal, neonatal, and infant mortality rates. These metrics combine into the overall "Health Score." Note that three of the most non-socialist countries - Turkey, Mexico, and the U.S., have the worst health scores among OECD countries. In the case of Turkey and Mexico, low overall wealth might explain the poor health, but what about America?

Being Satisfied

Pulling all these factors together, let's look at how the degree of socialism in a society correlates with self-reported "life satisfaction," along with some other objective measures of their material reality.

Based on what we've seen so far, it shouldn't be surprising that the most socialist countries also report some of the highest scores for overall life satisfaction. The typical worker and household have high incomes and wealth, while living in healthy, equal societies with plenty of time off. Meanwhile, people in the least socialist countries don't have as much money, are overworked, live in stratified societies, and are more likely to be surrounded by illness and death.

Is Socialism Stealing Innovation?

Sure, most workers and households get as much money, if not more, in countries with socialist societies as they do under capitalism. And sure, socialist societies appear to be more healthy, happy, and equal, while having more free time and fewer preventable deaths. But maybe it's because they are somehow free-riding on the backs of innovations that are due to the magic of capitalism.

Nope. Capitalism does not have a special ability to innovate. While the most socialist country (Norway) ranks less than the U.S., the U.S. ranks below Sweden and is comparable to Finland. Overall, the trend is fairly weak, with even more variation than previous trend lines. And "innovation output" is a more murky concept to measure than money, health, equality, and leisure. But this data does not support the idea that socialist countries rely on innovation from capitalism.

Conclusion: Bread and Roses

Socialists believe that society's means of production should serve everyone. To get there, socialists advocate for state-owned firms and funds, public goods and universal welfare programs, democracy in government and at the worksite, and labor unions and other forms of worker power. Capitalists and their ideological allies argue all these institutions impede the freedom of owners of private property - who are the true engines of prosperity. Through their investments and ingenuity, capitalists produce so much wealth that even when they hoard most of it, everyone else is ultimately richer, healthier, and happier. Societies that get in the way of capitalists, even for noble purposes, are doomed to fail and be miserable. And yet, when we look at the countries that have most impeded the freedom of capitalists, we find the opposite: People living under socialism are the ones most likely to be living the good life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Data Show That Socialism Works ❧ Current Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The left, right, and center disagree on the merits of socialism. But these disagreements are often impenetrable, as they rarely even agree which countries are socialist. Socialist-skeptics point to Venezuela as an example of socialism run amok, while socialists point to the Nordics as evidence of its virtues.

# data[].attributes.headline
15 Charts that Disturb Us about American Capitalism

# data[].attributes.subject
15 Charts that Disturb Us about American Capitalism

# data[].attributes.body
This is one of two of my visual sources. This article shows the trend of monopolies in America. This makes since due to the fact that the “winners” of capitalism benefit from no other competition, and it benefits them to quickly snuff out any other growing business.
“American capitalism is now comprised of monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Capitalism is the greatest system ever to lift people out of poverty and create wealth, but the "capitalism" we see today in the United States is a far cry from competitive markets. What people see today is a grotesque, deformed version of capitalism. The distorted representation we see is as far away from the real thing as Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean are from real pirates.

Central to capitalism is choice, freedom, and opportunity to compete. However, true consumer choice is an illusion in today's economy.

A few massive firms dominate their respective industries in monopolies and oligopolies. Economists call this industrial concentration, and it's reminiscent of the age of robber barons under J.P. Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gould, and Duke. As industries become highly concentrated in the hands of very few players, it threatens competition, increases inequality, and chokes economic growth. Economic power and political power becomes entrenched in the hands of a few players, squeezing out competitors.

American capitalism is now comprised of monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies. We've compiled a list of charts that help paint a picture of today's reality. (Believe it or not, since we collected these charts, many new mergers have been announced. It is impossible to keep pace with companies gobbling each other up.)

1. Fewer and fewer businesses are starting in the US

Despite illusions of 'disruptors' changing industries like ride-sharing and social media, in reality business dynamism (the number of entrepreneurs starting new businesses) is very low in the US.

2. More large firms dominate industries

This chart shows the percent of industries controlled by the top 4 firms. From beer to glass to tires - Americans have little choice when purchasing their products.

3. Decline of Competition

Firms do not even talk about competition anymore. This chart from the Economist shows that in annual reports, companies have less and less need to discuss competition from other firms.

This chart shows the history of mergers - when companies purchase other companies and merge to form one larger firm. Mergers were extremely common right before the turn of the century during the Gilded Age. There were 1580 mergers in just 3 years between 1897-1899.

Since the late 1990's, there have been multiple waves of mergers, creating giant companies that can easily swallow up competitors. But 2017 was the all-time North-American merger mania high with a whopping 18,070 mergers and acquisitions.

The following chart shows M&A Volume plotted against anti-trust cases:

We'll now take you on a tour of mergers by industries. There are many more examples, and these are the tip of the iceberg.

5. Mergers in the railroad industry

After multiple railroad company bankruptcies in the 1970s, Congress passed the Staggers Act in 1980 to deregulate the industry. Following this, the number of Class I railroads dramatically shrank from over 30 to just four. Broadly, deregulation was a success. However, once railroads came down to the final four, prices started rising again as competition has disappeared.

While railroads may appear to be an oligopoly with a few major players, they are in fact local and regional monopolies. For many shippers, they are only serviced by a single railroad. For example, two-thirds of coal shipped by rail is captive to a single railroad.[i] Today there are two major duopolies for grain transportation-BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad serve the Western United States, and CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern serve the East.[ii]

6. Mergers in the banking sector

Six years after the banking system blew up, the five biggest firms controlled 44% of the $15.3 trillion in assets held by US banks. Those banks - JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and USB - collectively held almost $7 trillion.

In 1990, the five biggest U.S. banks held less than 10% of industry assets, but that figure has steadily marched higher ever since. Today, Wells Fargo controls basically the same percentage of assets as the entire top five did in 1990.

The Federal Reserve has established rules taking effective in 2015 that will prohibit mergers that result in a combined company's liabilities exceeding 10% of the industry's total. However, the damage is already done. As you can see below, bank mergers have created fewer and fewer competitors.

7. Mergers in semiconductors

Over the past few years we have seen a wave of consolidation in almost all areas of technology. In 2014 and 2015 almost a dozen chipmakers changed hands in a wave of mergers. The wave is continuing. Analysts in the semiconductor sector expect additional merger attempts this year across the industry.

Broadcom proposed a $100 billion dollar acquisition of Qualcomm, which was only recently blocked by Trump who cited national security concerns over the Singaporean-based company. If that merger had succeeded, it would have been the largest technology deal in history. If the two companies had been American, the deal would have gone through. Broadcom has just this week moved its headquarters back to the US, and we will await their further attempts to gobble up competitors stateside.

8. Cable-TV Provider Mergers

Three companies control 65% of the nation's cable market but this figure is meaningless. At the local level, the companies face no real competition. This matters a great deal because cable is the only real option if you want to get high speed internet (only 25% have fiber optic and DSL phone lines are much slower).[iii] Most of the US has been carved up geographically.

In 2014 Comcast tried to buy Time Warner. In a rare sign of action on the part of regulators, they quashed the deal. However, almost all the damage due to consolidation is done. The New York Times helpfully put this chart together showing the history of mergers. While the deal did not go through, further consolidation is happening anyway. Today AT&T has proposed an $85 billion purchase of Time Warner, which is currently under antitrust review.

National mass media and news outlets are a prime example of an oligopoly, with 90% of U.S. media outlets owned by six corporations: Walt Disney, Time Warner, CBS Corporation, which is now merging with Viacom, NBC Universal, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

As if the media landscape were not concentrated enough, as we write this, Disney has agreed to buy most of Fox's media assets including its movie and TV studios for $52 billion. Why? Disney already owns Pixar, ABC, ESPN, Marvel, A&E, Lifetime, Touchstone, and many more. The merger will harm not only consumers, but also content creators. Fewer and fewer people will decide what TV shows or movies are made, and what will be produced. The Writers' Guild of America vehemently opposed the merger. In their words, "In the relentless drive to eliminate competition, big business has an insatiable appetite for consolidation. Disney and Fox have spent decades profiting from the oligopolistic control... often at the expense of the creators who power their television and film operations."[iv]

Trust in the mass media peaked in 1976 at 72%, and has steadily decreased since the 1980s, reaching an all-time low of 32% in 2016. Over the last 40 years, media trust has shown a strong inverse correlation with corporate ownership, and industry concentration.

Congress deregulated the Airlines in 1978. Deregulation increased profitability, but the industry went through cycles of boom and bust, primarily related due to oil prices and high fixed costs. As the New York Times put it, "An industry that is not naturally competitive went from being a regulated cartel, to a brief period of ruinous competition, and then to an unregulated cartel - with predictable effects on the quality of service."[v] Airlines devised frequent flier programs and "fortress hubs" to maximize their pricing power.

Carriers know to stay out of each other's hubs. Powerful airlines also buy up slots at airports to prevent new entrants, much like John D. Rockefeller bought up key swaths of land in Pennsylvania to block independent drillers from building pipelines that would enable them to escape Standard Oil's control over the railroads.[vi]

Because we have little choice when it comes to airlines, they can nickel and dime us every time we fly. Extra charges will top $82 billion by the end 2017, according to a study of global carriers by IdeaWorks and CarTrawler. This is a 264% increase from the 2010 figure of $22.6 billion.[vii]

11. Drug Store Market Share

The top 4 firms control almost 70% of the market and about $230 billion dollars of annual profits.

As of February 2018, Rite Aid is now merging with Albertsons (the grocery company) to form a 'food, health, and wellness' giant. The duopoly of Walgreens and CSV is even further solidified.

12. Agriculture and meat processing

Only four corporations provide 57% of all poultry, 65% of all pork, and 79% of all beef sold in the United States.[viii] Today, over 96% of chickens are raised under production contracts with large companies like Tyson, that dictate exactly how they're raised and fed, the size of facilities, and many other conditions. The pattern of a big company dictating terms to farmers is growing. As of 2012 Census, 34.8% of the entire value of U.S. agricultural production was governed by production or marketing contracts, up from 11% in 1969.[ix]

The impact of agricultural industry concentration has meant the ruin of farmers. Astonishingly, since 1980, 40% of all American cattle farmers and 90% of all hog farmers have gone out of business, while the big players have made dozens of billions of dollars of profit. In the 2000s decade, 71% of all chicken farmers were estimated to be earning less than the federal poverty line.[x]

13. Consumer foods - illusion of choice

Everywhere the illusion of choice, but Americans can only choose from a few firms in everything from soft drinks to toothpaste.

Soft Drinks - The top three firms dominate more than 85% of the market.[xi] Coca Cola is the leader, followed by PepsiCo and Dr. Pepper Snapple.

Toothpaste - Colgate and Procter & Gamble control more than 80 percent of the U.S. market for toothpaste, including such seemingly independent brands as Tom's of Maine.

14. Beer Market controlled by two companies

During an epic bout of Solitaire at the Department of Justice, the great beer mergers slipped through the attention of antitrust authorities. Astonishingly, the US government has allowed the entire US beer market to be locked up by two companies. The US beer market is an effective duopoly with two players (Molson Coors and AB InBev) controlling over 90% of beer.

Think of that every time you drink a cold one.

15. Anti-trust is deader than a dodo bird

Where are the regulators in all of this? Despite record waves of mergers, and increasing evidence that industry concentration is harmful to consumers and workers, the regulators don't seem to mind very much:

Monopoly is not capitalism.

In physics, gravitational fields form around objects with dense mass - they become larger and larger as they pull more objects into their gravitational field. This is what is happening with giant firms today.

Competition matters.

If there is no competition, consumers and workers have less freedom to choose. Freedom is essential to capitalism. It is not surprising then that Milton Friedman picked Free to Choose as the title of his extremely popular PBS series on capitalism, and Capitalism and Freedom was the title of his book that sold over 1.5 million copies. He argued that competitive capitalism-the organization of the bulk of economic activity through private enterprise operating in a free market-as a system of economic freedom was "a necessary condition for political freedom."[xii]

Everyone loses when capitalism is distorted. The damaging effects of Industrial concentration are evident everywhere. As we'll show in our new book, The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition , rising market power by dominant firms has created less competition, lower investment in the real economy, lower productivity, less economic dynamism with fewer startups, higher prices for dominant firms, lower wages and more wealth inequality. The economic studies are now pouring in like a flood. There are fewer winners and many losers when there is less competition.

If you believe in competitive free markets, you should be very concerned. If you believe in fair play and hate political and economic cronyism, you should be worried. This is an issue that both left and right can agree on - less competition is bad for all of us.

in this discussion, as we diagnose the problem and suggest solutions. It's time to reverse these trends and bring true capitalism back to America.

[i] http://consumerfed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Bulk-Commodities-and-the-Rails.pdf

[ii] https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/164478/2/Concentration.pdf

[iii] See fiber optic penetration by state https://broadbandnow.com/Fiber

[iv] https://www.avclub.com/the-writers-guild-is-not-happy-about-the-disney-fox-dea-1821301494

[v] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/opinion/how-the-airlines-became-abusive-cartels.html?_r=0

[vi] Chernow, Ron, Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., Vintage, p. 208.

[vii] https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinenegroni/2017/11/28/airlines-on-track-to-nickel-and-dime-travelers-for-record-82b-in-extra-fees-in-2017-study-says/#3e03d00b4792

[viii] Suarez-Villa, Luis. Corporate Power, Oligopolies, and the Crisis of the State (p. 63). State University of New York Press. Kindle Edition.

[ix] http://rafiusa.org/programs/contract-agriculture-reform/understanding-contract-agriculture/

[x] Suarez-Villa, Luis. Corporate Power, Oligopolies, and the Crisis of the State (p. 63). State University of New York Press. Kindle Edition.

[xi] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110506005600/en/Research-Markets-Soft-Drinks-Market-Analysis--

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15 Charts that Terrify Us about American 'Capitalism'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Capitalism is the greatest system ever to lift people out of poverty and create wealth, but the "capitalism" we see today in the United States is a far cry from competitive markets. What people see today is a grotesque, deformed version of capitalism.

# data[].attributes.body
This article provides a more in depth look at capitalism and its pros and cons.
"In short term, inequality may seem to be in the best interest of capitalism's winners. They have fewer competitive threats and may use their power to rig the system by creating barriers to entry"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Capitalism is an economic system where private entities own the factors of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. The owners of capital goods, natural resources, and entrepreneurship exercise control through companies. The individual owns his or her labor. The only exception is slavery, where someone else owns a person's labor. Although illegal throughout the entire world, slavery is still widely practiced.

Characteristics of Capitalism

Capitalistic ownership means two things. First, the owners control the factors of production. Second, they derive their income from their ownership. That gives them the ability to operate their companies efficiently. It also provides them with the incentive to maximize profit. This incentive is why many capitalists say " Greed is good."

In corporations, the shareholders are the owners. Their level of control depends on how many shares they own. The shareholders elect a board of directors. They hire chief executives to manage the company.

Capitalism requires a free market economy to succeed. It distributes goods and services according to the laws of supply and demand. The law of demand says that when demand increases for a particular product, price rises. When competitors realize they can make a higher profit, they increase production. The greater supply reduces prices to a level where only the best competitors remain.

The owners of supply compete against each other for the highest profit. They sell their goods at the highest possible price while keeping their costs as low as possible. Competition keeps prices moderate and production efficient.

Another component of capitalism is the free operation of the capital markets.

That means the laws of supply and demand set fair prices for stocks, bonds, derivatives, currency, and commodities. Capital markets allow companies to raise funds to expand. Companies distribute profits among the owners. They include investors, stockholders, and private owners.

Laissez-faire economic theory says the government should take a "hands-off" approach to capitalism. It should intervene only to maintain a level playing field. The government role is to protect the free market. It should prevent the unfair advantages obtained by monopolies or oligarchies. It ought to prevent manipulation of information, making sure it is distributed equitably.

Part of protecting the market is keeping order with national defense. The government should also maintain infrastructure. It taxes capital gains and income to pay for these goals. Global governmental bodies adjudicate international trade.

Advantages of Capitalism

Capitalism results in the best products for the best prices. That's because consumers will pay more for what they want the most. Businesses provide what customers want at the highest prices they'll pay. Prices are kept low by competition among businesses. They make their products as efficient as possible to maximize profit.

Most important for economic growth is capitalism's intrinsic reward for innovation. This includes innovation in more efficient production methods. It also means the innovation of new products. As Steve Jobs said, "You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."

Disadvantages of Capitalism

Capitalism doesn't provide for those who lack competitive skills. This includes the elderly, children, the developmentally disabled, and caretakers. To keep society functioning, capitalism requires government policies that value the family unit.

Despite the idea of a "level playing field," capitalism does not promote equality of opportunity. Those without the proper nutrition, support, and education may never make it to the playing field.

Society will never benefit from their valuable skills.

In the short term, inequality may seem to be in the best interest of capitalism's winners. They have fewer competitive threats. They may also use their power to "rig the system" by creating barriers to entry. For example, they will donate to elected officials who sponsor laws that benefit their industry. They could send their children to private schools while supporting lower taxes for public schools.

In the long term, inequality will limit diversity and the innovation it creates. For example, a diverse business team is more able to identify market niches. It can understand the needs of society's minorities, and target products to meet those needs.

Capitalism ignores external costs, such as pollution and climate change. This makes goods cheaper and more accessible in the short run. But over time, it depletes natural resources, lowers the quality of life in the affected areas, and increases costs for everyone. The government should impose Pigouvian taxes to monetize these external costs and improve the general welfare.

Some critics say these problems are signs of late-stage capitalism. They argue that capitalism's flaws mean it has evolved past its usefulness to society. They don't realize that capitalism's flaws are endemic to the system, regardless of the phase it is in.

America's Founding Fathers included promotion of the general welfare in the Constitution to balance these flaws. It instructed the government to protect the rights of all to pursue their idea of happiness as outlined in the American Dream. It's the government's role to create a level playing field to allow that to happen.

Difference Between Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism

Capitalism vs. Socialism

Proponents of socialism say their system evolves from capitalism. It improves upon it by providing a direct route between citizens and the goods and services they want. The people as a whole own the factors of production instead of individual business owners.

Many socialistic governments own oil, gas, and other energy-related companies. It's strategic for a government to control these profitable industries. The government collects the profit instead of corporate taxes on a private oil company. It distributes these profits in government spending programs. These state-owned companies still compete with private ones in the global economy.

Capitalism vs. Communism

Communism evolves beyond both socialism and capitalism, according to theorists. The government provides everyone with a minimum standard of living. That's guaranteed, regardless of their economic contribution.

Most societies in the modern world have elements of all three systems. This blend of systems is called a mixed economy. Elements of capitalism also occur in some traditional and command economies.

Capitalism vs. Fascism

Capitalism and fascism both allow private ownership of businesses. Capitalism gives those owners free rein to produce goods and services demanded by consumers. Fascism follows nationalism, requiring business owners to put national interests first. Companies must follow the orders of the central planners.

Capitalism and Democracy

Monetarist economist Milton Friedman suggested that democracy can only exist in a capitalistic society. But many countries have socialist economic components and a democratically-elected government. Others are communist but have thriving economies thanks to capitalistic elements. Examples include China and Vietnam. Some others are capitalist and governed by monarchs, oligarchs, or despots.

The United States is mostly capitalistic. The federal government does not own corporations. One important reason is that the U.S. Constitution protects the free market. For example:

Article I, Section 8 establishes the protection of innovation through copyright.

Article I, Sections 9 and 10 protects free enterprise and freedom of choice. It prohibits states from taxing each other's production.

Amendment IV prohibits unreasonable government searches and seizures, thereby protecting private property.

Amendment V protects the ownership of private property.

Amendment XIV prohibits the government from taking property without due process of law.

Amendments IX and X limit the government's power to those outlined explicitly in the Constitution. All other powers not mentioned are conferred to the people.

The Preamble of the Constitution sets forth a goal to "promote the general welfare." It requires the government to take a more significant role than that prescribed by a pure market economy. That's why America has many social safety programs, such as Social Security, food stamps, and Medicare.

Examples of Capitalism

The United States is one example of capitalism, but it's not the best. In fact, it doesn't even rank within the top 10 countries with the freest markets. That's according to both Global Finance Magazine and The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. They based their ranking on nine variables. These include lack of corruption, low debt levels, and protection of property rights.

The top 10 most capitalistic countries are:

The United States ranks 18th. Its weak spots are in business freedom and property rights. Its immense national debt also limits fiscal policy. It's created a future tax burden that will restrict taxpayer freedom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Capitalism Works Compared to Socialism and Communism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Capitalism is an economic system where private entities own the factors of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. The owners of capital goods, natural resources, and entrepreneurship exercise control through companies. The individual owns his or her labor. The only exception is slavery, where someone else owns a person's labor.

# data[].attributes.body
This article provides a more in depth look at socialism and compares it to other economic systems.
"Socialists assume that the basic nature of people is cooperative"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Economic theory is about the fundamentals of economics and how they apply to current events. Learning about economic theory may help you better understand the global economy.

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains the possible comfort CBD can bring to senior dogs or dogs with mobility or chronic issues. It goes into depth on how it can affect the dogs system and bring them some form of comfort.

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains the positive effects of CBD. It explains the calming effects it can have on animals with high anxiety levels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Looking for the best CBD oil for dogs? Dogs outnumber cats as pets, which means they are the most popular animal companion in the United States. These cheerful canines bring you great joy, funny moments and lifelong companionship. However, owning a dog also comes with great difficulty.

It can be hard to see your furry friend suffer from pain, chronic disease or another ailments. Dogs are prone to many of the same diseases as humans and can become affected by anxiety, arthritis, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy and general pain and discomfort. Many struggle to sleep or do basic activities like walking up and down the stairs. If you have ever felt like there is little you can do when your canine is suffering, consider looking at CBD oil as a potential solution.

Cannabidiol (CBD) oil is a liquid extracted from hemp plants. In recent decades, it has become well-known for its therapeutic qualities. It should not be confused with its counterpart, THC, which is also produced by hemp but is known for being psychoactive. CBD will not get your pet "high" but has shown to have various positive effects, such as calming anxiety, pain relief and inflammation, and even lessening the frequency and intensity of seizures. It can even be used to help people and animals sleep at night.

After centuries of experimentation and use on humans, CBD oil has entered the animal market. In this guide, we'll discuss some of our favorite CBD oils for canines and include a little information about what to look for during the purchase. There is also significant information about the safety of the oil, how it can be used and administered, and the types of ailments it can treat.

If you want to help your furry friend feel like their old self again, consider investing in CBD oil today.

The Best CBD Oils for Dogs in 2020

Top Pick: Paw CBD by cbdMD

Runner-Up: CBD Pet by CBD Pure

Best Value: NuLeaf Naturals Pet CBD Oil

Best Flavor Range: Honest Paws

Proudly from the U.S., our absolute first choice for canines everywhere is Paw CBD by cbdMD. Just because something is expensive does not mean it is a high quality. For dog owners who would like a quality oil which is also affordable, there is the cbdMD Pet CBD Oil. This full-spectrum CBD offering is one of the only tinctures to come in four separate concentrations: 300 mg, 750 mg, 1500 mg and 3000 mg. In terms of price, each strength only costs around $0.10 per mg or less, meaning you can get a massive container at low cost.

Besides being affordable, this CBD oil is also one of the most palatable. The manufacturers know dogs are their target audience and therefore flavors each oil with peanut butter extract and some coconut oil. Each formula is vegan, gluten-free and free of GMOs. You can even purchase chewable CBD treats made with natural ingredients like honey and steel cut oats.

When you purchase the treats, you can choose from concentrations of 150 mg, 300 mg and 750 mg. If you have other pets that require a little extra care, cbdMD has products for cats and horses with conditions like arthritis.

A 30-day money back guarantee is also included with each of their pet products.

All of the tinctures from CBD Pure are derived from non-GMO hemp plants to avoid chemicals. Each bottle contains 99% CBD oil with MCT coconut oil for extra sweetness.

CBD Pure is the only CBD brand to offer a 90 day money back guarantee on all orders.

Our third choice is a CBD pet oil which works well for dogs, cats and many other four-legged creatures. The NuLeaf Naturals Pet CBD Oil is created with no additives or preservatives, and is also derived from organic hemp. This full spectrum CBD oil is a great option for pet owners who want to avoid chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. It is also extracted using CO2 instead of solvents, so users don't need to worry about toxic ingredients seeping into the oil.

In terms of versatility, NuLeaf Naturals makes oils in three concentrations: 240 mg, 725 mg and 1450 mg. Each container is affordable at an overall price of $0.15 per mg. Plus, any orders in the United States qualify for free expedited shipping, so you can get the oil quickly for canines who need quick relief.

This pet tincture is available in three strengths to accommodate dogs of different sizes: 125 mg, 250 mg and 500 mg. It is important to check the strength and the weight of your canine before dosing. Regardless of the strength, Honest Paws only recommends using about 1 mL of oil per day to avoid side effects.

One of the benefits of using Honest Paws is the hemp used in the formulation is grown in Colorado at a GMO-free location. Third-party testing is performed to ensure the highest quality of the CBD oil. It is in the middle of the average price range, costing anywhere from $0.16 to $0.32 per mg. While it is a little more expensive than some other oils on the market, it is effective, efficient and grown domestically in the United States.

5. Best Organic CBD: CBDfx

CBDfx offers the ideal canine CBD oil for pet owners who are concerned about using organic, non-GMO ingredients. The broad-spectrum oil produced by this manufacturer is created using only non-GMO, organic hemp grown without pesticides or herbicides. The oil is extracted from the plant using the eco-friendly cold-press method, which avoids using traditional solvents in favor of basic pressing.

If you don't believe the manufacturer, they improve their credibility by offering third-party lab test result reports. These results demonstrate the lack of chemicals in the finished product so you can ensure you are giving your dog a pure CBD oil.

If you are unsure about the amount of CBD to give your dog, consult the package and consider only using one drop per 20 pounds. The concoction is less than 0.3% THC, which is a small amount. It is safe for canines but creates long-lasting effects such as the alleviation of inflammation and pain.

What Is CBD Oil?

There are many misconceptions about CBD oil because of its close association with cannabis. Cannabidiol, from which CBD derives its abbreviation, is a chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. The cannabis plant is often associated with marijuana but its more well-known form is hemp.

Hemp is ideal for the creation of CBD oil because it possesses a low concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. CBD oil does NOT contain any THC and therefore does not cause its users to get "high." Instead, they feel relaxed, calm and can enjoy the health benefits of the plant without the dangers of psychoactive elements. It should also be noted THC can be highly toxic to dogs, so you should avoid giving your dog any CBD oil products which claim to have THC in them.

CBD Oil for Dogs

CBD oil interacts with the endocannabinoid system (ECS), which is in all mammals, and is responsible for the regulation of sleep, memory and immunity to disease. During this interaction, CBD and other cannabinoids develop a therapeutic effect capable of treating ailments like seizures, chronic pain, joint pain and inflammation, anxiety, depression and even insomnia. Its medicinal effects have been known for thousands of years in humans, and it was only a matter of time before we decided to treat our furry friends as well.

Is CBD Oil Safe for Dogs?

Everyone is concerned about the health and safety of their dog, especially when it comes to giving the canine a new substance. It is normal, and quite intelligent, to ask questions about CBD oil and its safety before giving some to your best friend.

At present, CBD oil is considered a low risk option for dogs because of its minor side effects. While there remains some debate in the veterinary community about the total efficacy, it will not hurt your dog. The most common side effects for canines are the same as for humans and include drowsiness, dizziness, dry mouth and diarrhea. You should always give your pet the proper dosage, but a lethal overdose is not a risk.

Even though it is considered safe, you should do your research before using any CBD oil. Remember to speak with your vet and to read product ingredients, manufacturing methods and other information about individual products. It is important to ensure your oil does not have any added harmful substances which could interact with your pet.

Remember CBD oil is different from other cannabis products; it is not marijuana and does not contain THC. If you see THC on a label, do NOT buy it. THC can harm canines of all sizes.

Finally, remember to keep CBD products in a location your dog can't reach. Dogs are known for gorging themselves on food, especially treats, and you don't want them to get a sick stomach.

How Can CBD Oil Help Your Dog?

CBD oil is believed to alleviate pain, tenderness and chronic aches caused by common conditions in canines. Just remember to always have your dog diagnosed by a licensed veterinarian before beginning treatment to ensure your dog is receiving the best care possible. In many cases, CBD oil should be utilized alongside traditional methods to reduce side effects and increase your pet's wellness.
Anxiety: Panting, pacing, whimpering, hiding, sudden bouts of aggression, trembling, loss of appetite, trouble sleeping, accidents in the home despite training.
Scientists discovered CBD can moderate the impulses which increase excitement and tension in animals. It also boosts serotonin, resulting in a calming effect.
Autoimmune Disease: There are numerous autoimmune diseases like arthritis, diabetes and lupus. Common symptoms include muscle weakness, fever, weight loss, excessive panting, abdominal pain and kidney failure.
CBD reduces the pain and tenderness experienced by canines with these ailments.
Cancer: Lumps or bumps in the body, wounds that don't heal, chronic injuries, abnormal bleeding or swelling in the bones.
CBD has been show to help prevent the growth of new tumors and can slow the spread of cells. It also facilitates traditional forms of cancer treatment by reducing pain and nausea.
Chronic Inflammation: Stiffness in the joints, swelling, redness of the skin, chronic pain.
CBD interacts with the receptors responsible for inflammation and reduces their effectiveness in order to treat inflammation. It once again alleviates pain.
Epilepsy: Recurring seizures with symptoms like collapsing, muscle spasms, frothing at the mouth, twitching, jerking, tongue chewing and a loss of consciousness.
CBD oil possess anticonvulsant properties, which means it can prevent erratic firing of the nerves responsible for causing seizures.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Diarrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue, weight loss, bloody stool, frequent flatulence.
IBD is caused by an abnormal immune response that causes inflammation. CBD oil is anti-inflammatory and reduces the pain, discomfort and frequency of diarrheic episodes in dogs.
Regular Pain Pain is caused by many different things but often means your dog is struggling to do basic activities like running, walking, climbing stairs or playing.
Scientific and veterinary studies show CBD enhances the signaling of the neurotransmitter anandamide. Anandamide has been shown to reduce pain in both humans and animals.

Types of CBD Products Available for Dogs

One of the greatest benefits of CBD oil is how it can be processed into numerous forms. This means if your dog struggles with a particular method, there is always another you can try. So, if you have a stubborn mammal who always eats around pills, it is possible to find something else.

At present, most CBD oil intended for canines is put into one of four forms:

Dog Treats: CBD dog treats are often the simplest way of giving dogs CBD oil because canines are accustomed to associating treats with special occasions, rewards and deliciousness. After all, what dog doesn't love to receive a bone or crunchy bit? CBD oil treats come in numerous shapes, sizes, flavors and dosage levels, allowing you to choose one your dog will love to eat. Dog treats are also beneficial because the dosage is clearly labeled on the package, which takes the guesswork out of trying to find the right dosage for your pup.

Topical Cream: If your dog suffers from a skin condition or an easily upset stomach, you should consider a topical cream. Creams are great for canines who have problems such as rashes, allergies, arthritis or similar conditions near the surface of their bodies. The CBD topical cream can be applied directly to the skin and will release its agents. The only downside is some dogs might lick the cream, but if you want quick relief for acute and chronic pain, this is the route to take.

Capsules: CBD oil can be placed inside digestible capsules which are then hidden in your dog's food. This form is similar to most human medications.

Tinctures: Finally, there are CBD tinctures. Tinctures are CBD oil in its purest form as a liquid. This oil needs to be administered under your dog's tongue, where it will then be absorbed into the bloodstream and swallowed. The primary benefit of using a tincture is how it allows for exact dosages. If you have multiple dogs, you can then customize the amount per animal. Tinctures also work faster than the other methods because they are absorbed directly.

The CBD Dosage for Your Dog

When you give your dog CBD oil, you need to ensure they receive the proper dosage. While dosing your pet can seem difficult or confusing at first, there are a couple of key factors which make calculations a breeze.

Dog's Size: The most important element to consider is your dog's size and weight. The majority of high-quality CBD oils, including those on this list, will include dosing information and suggestions based on the weight of your canine. Weight is a super important consideration because it affects the absorption of the chemical. As a general rule, larger dogs will need more oil, but you should always read the included information before dosing.

CBD Product: The dosage will vary depending on the product you use. The majority of CBD oils describe CBD concentration in milligrams. You will then need to determine your dosage by calculating the number of milligrams multiplied by your dog's weight. Sounds confusing, right? But the method is quite simple: milligram concentration x weight = dosage. For example, an oil with a concentration of 0.10 will result in the following dosage for a 40 lb. dog: 0.10 x 40 = 4 milligram dosage. However, you should once again always check the product to see if the manufacturer has different dosing instructions for you to follow.

Purpose: Finally, your dosage will depend on what type of condition your pet possesses. In general, the CBD dosage will be lower if you are using the oil for a therapeutic reason instead of a medical one. Some examples of therapeutic problems include anxiety, inflammation and pain from physical injuries. An example of a medicinal purpose would be giving your dog CBD oil for epilepsy. The majority of products will list different dosage recommendations based on whether your usage is therapeutic or medicinal.

How to Administer CBD Oil to Your Dog

Similar to what was mentioned earlier, getting a dog to take CBD oil can be a difficult process even without considering the task of dosing. Luckily, CBD oil is available in the forms discussed above. Simply follow these steps to administer each one.

Treats: Treats are simple to administer. All you need to do is give your dog the right number of treats equal to the proper dosage listed on the packaging.

Topical Creams: Since most topicals are creams, they are easy to apply to your dog's skin. You just need to rub the recommended amount in and then allow it to be absorbed. If your dog has thick hair, you should move it away from the application site for better absorption.

Capsules: Capsules can be mixed into food or hidden in treats. Many owners recommend using favorite human options like cheese and peanut butter to tempt picky canines.

Tincture: Liquid CBD oil is best applied in drops underneath the tongue, where it will then be absorbed into the bloodstream. If your dog doesn't like the taste, consider using a flavored oil or mixing it into some food.

Before You Buy CBD Oil for Dogs

Besides the information listed above, there are a couple of final things to think about when purchasing CBD oil.

Mixing Medications: Mixing medications can be dangerous. If your dog is currently taking any medications and you are interested in using CBD oil, speak to your vet first. There are some medicines which have negative interactions with CBD oil. The oil itself can also slow the liver's metabolism, which affects how well drugs are broken down and absorbed by the body. An educated veterinarian will be able to tell you whether or not it is safe for your pet to have CBD oil.

Organic Options: Not all CBD oil is organic. While the product is derived from a plant, some oils only utilize hemp which was grown without herbicides and pesticides. If you are concerned about the potential of exposing your dog to these substances, you can shop around and search for an organic alternative. We have listed our personal favorite above, but there are always more on the market to choose from.

Extraction Method: Not every manufacturer uses the same extraction method to remove CBD from hemp. In general, processes like superficial CO2 extraction and cold-press extraction are the best because they do not involve solvents. If you want to help your pet avoid harmful byproducts, check out whether or not the manufacturer uses one of these procedures.

The Bottom Line

When it comes to your pets, you always want the best for them. With the aid of this guide, you will discover the best CBD oils for dogs currently on the market. You will also learn important information about just how to dose your canine companion and the best way to administer the oil to receive the effects of CBD you want.

If your furry friend suffers from an acute or chronic condition and you would like to help them find some relief, consider researching and investing in CBD oil today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Best CBD Oil for Dogs-Buyers Guide (Updated 2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Looking for the best CBD oil for dogs? Dogs outnumber cats as pets, which means they are the most popular animal companion in the United States. These cheerful canines bring you great joy, funny moments and lifelong companionship. However, owning a dog also comes with great difficulty.

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes through all of the possible risks and benefits of giving CBD to your animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As with any pet wellness trend, when it comes to CBD oil for dogs, there's a lot of information floating around online. Of course, you want to do what's best for your pup, which leads to the question: What do I need to know about CBD oil?

The AKC's Chief Veterinary Officer, Dr. Jerry Klein, explains what CBD oil is, what it does, and its safety concerns and side effects.

What Is CBD Oil?

CBD, or cannabidiol, is a compound found in cannabis and hemp. Dr. Klein says it is essential to note that in most cases, CBD oil does not contain delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the compound that gives marijuana its psychoactive properties. In fact, most CBD products are derived from hemp and not from marijuana.

How Does CBD Affect Dogs?

Currently, there has been no formal study on how CBD affects dogs. What scientists do know is that cannabinoids interact with the endocannabinoid receptors located in the central and peripheral nervous systems, which help maintain balance in the body and keep it in a normal healthy state.

What Dog Health Problems Can CBD Oil Treat?

While there's no definitive scientific data on using CBD to treat dogs, there's anecdotal evidence from dog owners suggesting it can treat pain, especially neuropathic pain, as well as helping to control seizures.

According to Dr. Klein, CBD is also used because of its anti-inflammatory properties, cardiac benefits, anti-nausea effects, appetite stimulation, anti-anxiety impact, and for possible anti-cancer benefits, although there's no conclusive data on this use.

The AKC Canine Health Foundation (CHF) is sponsoring a study, through the Colorado State University's College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, that will evaluate the use of CBD in treatment-resistant epileptic dogs. The CHF hopes that this will be the first study to gain scientific data on the use of CBD in dogs with this condition.

Possible Side Effects of CBD in Dogs

While there's no scientific data on the side effects of CBD usage for dogs, there are potential side effects based on how CBD affects humans. To minimize any potential side effects, make sure you are following the proper dosage.

Dry mouth: Research has shown that CBD can decrease the production of saliva. For dogs, this would manifest as an increased thirst.

Lowered blood pressure: High doses of CBD have been known to cause a temporary drop in blood pressure. Even though the drop is small, it might create a brief feeling of light-headedness.

Drowsiness: Dog owners have used CBD to treat anxiety. The calming effect of CBD can also cause slight drowsiness, especially when using higher doses.

Risks of Using CBD Oil for Dogs

The safety and risks of using CBD for dogs have not yet been researched. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved CBD and has not issued a dosing chart. Therefore, we do not know what size dosage would be toxic. Any medication or supplement carries the risk of a reaction. It is always advisable, when giving your dog something new, to start out with small amounts and then closely monitor the effects. And always check with your veterinarian first.

CBD Products on the Market

If you and your veterinarian decide that you should try CBD as a treatment for your dog, there are a few things to keep in mind when purchasing CBD oil. Not all oils are the same; you'll want high-quality CBD oil to have a better chance of it working.

Look for organic. If the CBD oil is not organic, it at least should not contain pesticides, fungicides, or solvents.

Don't only shop based on price. Higher quality and purity are usually associated with a higher cost. A cheaper option could contain toxic substances such as pesticides, herbicides, or heavy metals. Make sure your CBD oil is free of additives.

Get the analysis. The manufacturer should provide a certificate that certifies the amount of CBD that is in the product. Many CBD products contain only small amounts of CBD. You'll also want to make sure there is little or no THC in the product.

Buy CBD as a liquid. You can buy dog treats containing CBD, but the best form to administer is an oil or tincture. This way, you can adjust your dog's dose drop by drop.

The CBD Wellness Trend

Why are we hearing so much about CBD oil now? Dr. Klein points to the legalization of marijuana in many places, which has triggered interest in potential health benefits of marijuana-related products. "We are likely to see continued interest in CBD and an increase in research about its uses and efficacy in the coming years," he says.

Learn more about the CBD study funded by the Canine Health Foundation.
Innovet created a product line of full spectrum pure hemp oils void of dangerous compounds. Their USDA certified organic oil is formulated especially for animals and is also third-party tested to ensure consistency and purity. Innovet offers more than 50 affordable products to help pets manage anxiety, pain, as well as other conditions. Get more information about I nnovet's CBD products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As with any pet wellness trend, when it comes to CBD oil for dogs, there's a lot of information floating around online. Of course, you want to do what's best for your pup, which leads to the question: What do I need to know about CBD oil?

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows how CBD can affect horses. It explains how if you overdose CBD the effects are very mild and can be treated by simple cutting back on the dosage. Overall the effects of CBD on horses and animals in general have shown to be positive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CBD. Whether you're already using it, you're thinking about it, or just plain never heard of it, it's worth getting more familiar with. No, it is not the latest "snake oil" touting cures from hair loss to ingrown toenails. Instead, it is a chemical messenger in the "endocannabinoid system", a natural and crucial part of the body. Research on this system is extensive, with years of examination and hundreds of studies.

My goal in writing this article is to offer you an overview of how CBD can impact your health as well as the health of your horses, dogs ¹, and cats. From a personal perspective, I have experienced significant pain relief from sciatica. Many of my clients have decided to use it for themselves, offering them better sleep, lessened anxiety and depression, improved digestive health, allergy relief, and reduced pain.

Chester is my 22-year-old horse. He suffers from arthritis in his hocks and knees and is now moving with much greater ease. Clients who have decided to try CBD for their horses have offered very positive feedback. Inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis and ulcerations are showing improvement, as well as pain relief from laminitis. Horses with anxiety or "sensitive" behavior, have a more relaxed demeanor. And, metabolic conditions may be potentially alleviated, which is quite exciting. While it's too soon to tell if leptin and insulin levels are declining from CBD treatment, there have been studies showing how CBD reduces insulin resistance and obesity ², as well as appetite, in people with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. ³

What is CBD and is it marijuana?

CBD is short for "cannabidiol", one of more than 80 different cannabinoids found in the cannabis plant. CBD and THC are the two most studied, and this is where many misunderstandings stem from.

Cannabis sativa L. (genus, species, and subspecies) is the "umbrella term" for the plants known as hemp and marijuana. Marijuana is particularly high in THC, the cannabinoid that creates a psychoactive "high." CBD, on the other hand, does not create this effect.

Hemp-derived CBD is not marijuana. Although both hemp and marijuana belong to the Cannabis genus, their genetic composition distinguishes them to produce vastly different amounts of THC. Hemp-derived CBD is high in CBD and very low in THC (less than 0.3%).

Though hemp-derived CBD is legal in all 50 US states, thanks to the passing of the 2018 Farm Bill ⁴, federal law does not preempt state law, and there are still some restrictions within various states ⁵. Just as many cities throughout the country prohibit alcohol sales, there are local and state laws that restrict industrial hemp products. But bottom line, it is legal to purchase and consume hemp-derived CBD products. The FDA ⁶ does not regulate it so it behooves you to choose a reputable company that is willing to disclose the source, extraction method, and analysis of their products.

What is the endocannabinoid system?

The endocannabinoid system (ECS) is a major signaling system that exists in you and your animals. It continually monitors any instability within the body and returns it to a state of balance or homeostasis so that the internal environment remains stable.

CBD and other cannabinoids are compounds that activate this system. Cannabinoids, both naturally produced by the body (endogenous), and those supplemented from cannabis (exogenous), act as "keys" to these receptors, turning on a variety of functions.
Within the ECS there are two main cell receptors - CB1 and CB2:

CB1 receptors exist mainly in the brain and central nervous system. They impact areas such as appetite regulation, memory, emotions, and feelings of pain.

CB2 receptors are concentrated in the gastrointestinal tract and peripheral nervous system (nerve cells outside the brain and spinal cord) and modulate immune cell functions. When activated, they help reduce inflammation.

Endogenous cannabinoids are produced when the body signals that they are required, but are quickly degraded. Offering CBD (exogenous cannabinoid) allows the ECS to work harder and be more productive to help us and our animals deal with health issues such as:

Anxiety and depression⁷

Pain and inflammation⁹

obesity/increased appetite/leptin resistance10,11

Metabolic syndrome/insulin resistance¹²

Immune deficiencies and autoimmune diseases¹³

Digestive disturbances/ulcers/colitis¹⁴

CBD has a favorable safety profile ¹⁵. If overdosed, it can have some mild effects. These can include drowsiness, decreased blood pressure, dizziness, fatigue, and diarrhea. If you or your animals experience any of these, you can cut back on the dosage. Long-term use appears to be safe, though further research is needed.

Noteworthy: Until we know more, CBD should not be taken by pregnant women, though many women purport relief from nausea during pregnancy. Consult your veterinarian before giving it to a pregnant animal. It should not be given to children without professional permission. Since it can interact with some drugs ¹⁶, including anti-epileptic and blood thinner medications, it is best to consult with your doctor or pharmacist when you have any doubts.

As of this date, there are few, if any, research studies that use horses as subjects. But I expect this will quickly change as more and more companies are selling CBD for equine consumption. In the meantime, anecdotal responses are highly favorable. From first-hand accounts of horse owners, hemp-derived CBD appears to stimulate the horse's ECS in the same way it does yours. It is well tolerated, without any euphoric or adverse effects. Specific health conditions that CBD may improve, based on currently available studies with humans and laboratory animals include:

Pain¹⁷ from arthritis¹⁸ or laminitis

Anxiety during stall confinement¹⁹

Stress during traveling and shows²⁰

Ulcers and leaky gut²¹

Healing from surgery or injury²²

Immune system depression from oxidative stress²³ experienced with Cushing's disease

Appetite regulation²⁴

Inflammation, with the potential to reduce leptin levels²⁶

Insulin resistance²³

Horse competition rules and testing

The FEI and the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) have strict rules regarding medicating horses before events. Recently, the USEF announced that as of September 1, 2019, positive test results for cannabinoids will incur violations.

Since it is THC that is detectable by a blood or urine test, it is highly unlikely for a positive test result to occur since hemp-derived CBD contains only minute amounts of THC. Nonetheless, it is possible, so it is best to discontinue its use 7 to 10 days before an event. Even if you choose a CBD isolate or broad-spectrum product (which does not contain any THC), it is best to err on the side of caution by stopping before an event.

Choose a safe, quality product

First, know where the hemp was grown. Choose products grown in the US or Canada. If it was grown overseas with potentially relaxed growing standards, it could be contaminated with chemicals, bacteria, and heavy metals that put your health at risk.

To ensure a clean, safe product, it is best to buy CBD that has been tested and offers a Certificate of Analysis (COA) posted on the company's website This document shows how the company meets and adheres to product specifications and standards of production.

Some other things to pay attention to with CBD products:

Check the label for accurate CBD content per dose.

Choose a product from an organic source.

Look for the percentage of THC on a provided COA.

CBD isolate, full-spectrum, or broad-spectrum?

CBD isolate means that the product contains only CBD with no other naturally occurring cannabinoids, including THC. That also means that other substances that are found in the plant, such as terpenes and flavonoids, have been fully extracted.

If you are undergoing a drug test for a job, it is best to use the isolate, or stop your usage of the full-spectrum product a week or two before the test.

Full-spectrum is a whole plant CBD, meaning that it contains CBD and other cannabinoids (less than 0.3% THC), as well as terpenes, flavonoids, and active essential oils.

Broad-spectrum products also contain the whole plant compounds like full-spectrum, but the THC has been removed.

The "entourage effect". It used to be thought that CBD isolate was the best approach. But it is now better understood that the cannabinoids and plant compounds found in full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD create a synergism where they work together to complement each other, offering a greater impact on health conditions.

It's important to note that dogs and cats can benefit from hemp-derived full-spectrum CBD, even though they cannot tolerate THC from marijuana. The tiny amount of THC found in this product is safe may further increase the entourage effect.

It takes a lot of hemp plants to create a CBD oil (tincture). Products called "" are not necessarily concentrated with CBD. Hempseed oil is a nutritious oil, high in essential fatty acids, but it is not a good source of CBD. Before you buy, read the label carefully to determine just how much CBD exists in the product.

What extraction method is best?

When researching a CBD product for you and your animals, it is best to know the extraction method used to remove CBD from the plant. Going through each method is beyond the scope of this article, but the approach that is most complete and the cleanest is a CO ₂ extraction. It uses carbon dioxide (CO ₂) to extract CBD from the plant to create products that are pure and very powerful.

How much CBD is in one dose?

The label should provide you with the amount of CBD per dose. But it can be confusing.

When using a CBD tincture, you should see the number of mgs of CBD in the full bottle. Some products can be very diluted, so be sure the manufacturer's label is detailed and specific.

Many tinctures will offer directions by the "dropper-full." But getting a full dropper is not always possible or can be inaccurate. The best approach is to first determine the amount of CBD in each drop. By knowing how many mgs are in each drop, you can accurately dispense the desired dosage.

To do this, you need to know these three things:

There are 30ml of oil in a typical CBD tincture bottle,

A full dropper-full is 1ml, and

There are 20 drops in a ml

Two examples:
1. CBD tincture that offer 2500mg of CBD in the entire 30ml bottle:

Divide 2500 by 30 to get the number of mg per dropper-full (1ml). This calculates to be 83.3mg of CBD in 1ml

Divide 83.3 by 20 to give you the level of CBD per drop. This calculates to be about 4mg per drop.

2. CBD tincture for pets that offers 250mg of CBD in the entire 30ml bottle:

250 divided by 30 = 8.3mg of CBD in one dropper-full (1ml)

8.3 divided by 20 = .42mg (slightly less than ½mg) of CBD per drop

Other forms of CBD such as pellets, gummies, capsules, and topicals should offer specific amounts of CBD per dose.

Dosages are weight dependent and based on the severity of the situation. It is best to start slowly, and then increase the dose as needed. A little trial and error is necessary to find the right dose that is best for you or your animals. Keep in mind that it takes about 2 weeks for the body to experience relief and will continue to improve over time.

Dosage recommendations are not standardized. However, through research studies and applications, here are generalized daily guidelines. I have found that dividing the dose into two servings is better than administering once daily.

Pets:

Under 25lbs: 10mg

25 to 75lbs: 10 to 20mg

75 or more lbs: 20-40mg

People:

Less than 100lbs: 20 to 40mg

100 to 174lbs: 30 to 60mg

Over 175lbs: 60 to 90mg

Horses:

Minis: 25 to 50mg

Full sized (1100lbs): 75 to 170mg

Large breeds: 120 to 200mg

There are several ways to provide CBD:

Sublingual: Placing the drops under the tongue and holding them there for 30 seconds provides good bioavailability and kicks in quickly. This is difficult to do for animals and is not recommended since most droppers are made of glass and can cause injury if bitten.

Oral: Adding CBD to food, swallowing a CBD capsule, or chewing a CBD gummy, will take the longest time for the effects to become apparent, but this method is longer lasting than under the tongue. Pellets (typically available for animals) that are extruded are better absorbed than pellets that use binders, providing improved bioavailability and hence, lower effective dosing²⁷.

Pulmonary: CBD vapes are available. While this has the highest bioavailability, it has the shortest duration of action. I typically do no recommend this for people with any respiratory conditions, since it could be potentially harmful.

Topical: CBD is absorbed well into the skin and is beneficial for targeted areas²⁸.

Even though experts have been studying for decades the benefits of CBD, there is still research that needs to be done, especially for horses. Nevertheless, the outcome thus far is encouraging, revealing long-reaching benefits on the natural endocannabinoid system, providing relief from mental and physical ailments that affect us, our families, and our animals.

[1] Kogan, L., Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., Hellyer, P., and Rishniw, M., 2018. US veterinarians' knowledge, experience, and perception regarding the use of cannabidiol for canine medical conditions. [2] Parray, H.A., and Yun, J.W., 2016. Cannabidiol promotes browning in 3T3-L1 adipocytes. [3] Tarragon, E., and Moreno, J.J., 2019. Cannabinoids, chemical senses, and regulation of feeding behavior. [4] Everything you need to know about the 2018 Farm Bill (updated): [5] Is CBD oil legal in all 50 states?[6] FDA regulations of cannabis and cannabis-derived products. [7] De Gregorio, D., McLaughlin, R.J., Posa, L., et al., 2019. Cannabidiol modulates serotonergic transmission and reverses both allodynia and anxiety-like behavior in a model of neuropathic pain. [8] Maple, K.E., McDaniel, K.A., Shollenbarger, S.G., and Lisdahl, K.M., 2017. Dose-dependent cannabis use, depressive symptoms, and FAAH genotype predict sleep quality in emerging adults: A pilot study. [9] Hammell, D.C., Zhang, L.P., Ma, F., Abshire, S.M., et al., 2015. Transdermal cannabidiol reduces inflammation and pain-related behaviors in rat model of arthritis. [10] Kunos, G., Osei-Hyiaman, D., Liu, J., et al., 2008. Endocannabinoids and the control of energy homeostasis. [11] Rossi, F., Punzo, F., Umano, G.R., et al., 2018. Role of cannabinoids in obesity. [12] Mastinu, A., Premoli, M., Ferrari-Toninelli, G., et. al., 2018. Cannabinoids in health and disease: Pharmacological potential in metabolic syndrome and neuroinflammation. [13] Zgair, A., Lee, J.B., Wong, J.C.M., et al., 2017. Oral administration of cannabis with lipids leads to high levels of cannabinoids in the intestinal lymphatic system and prominent immunomodulation. [14] Irving, P.M., Iqbal, T., Nwokolo, C., et al., 2018. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, pilot study of cannabidiol-rich botanical extract in the symptomatic treatment of ulcerative colitis. [15] Iffland, K., and Grotenhermen, F., 2017. An update on safety and side effects of cannabidiol: A review of clinical data and relevant animal studies. [16] Medical cannabis - adverse effects and drug reactions. [17] Cannabidiol: A new option for patients in pain? [18] Malaita, A.M., Gallily, R., Sumariwalla, P.F., et al., 2000. The nonpsychoactive cannabis constituent cannabidiol is an oral anti-arthritic therapeutic in murine collagen-induced arthritis. [19] Maroon, J., and Bost, J., 2018. Review of the neurological benefits of phytocannabinoids. [20] Campos, A.C., Moreira, F.A., Gomes, F.V., et al., 2012. Multiple mechanisms involved in the large-spectrum therapeutic potential of cannabidiol in psychiatric disorders. [21] Couch, D.G., Cook, H., Ortori, C, et.al., 2019. Palmitoylethanolamide and cannabidiol prevent inflammation-induced hyperpermeability of the human gut in vitro and in vivo - A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind controlled trial. [22] Styrczewska, M., Kostyn, A, Kulma, A., et al., 2015. Flax fiber hydrophobic extract inhibits human skin cells inflammation and causes remodeling of extracellular matrix and wound closure activation. [23] Booz, G.W., 2012., Cannabidiol as an emergent therapeutic strategy for lessening the impact of inflammation on oxidative stress. [24] Garamond, J.A., Whalley, B.J., and Williams, C.M., 2012. Cannabinol and cannabidiol exert opposing effects on rat feeding patterns. [25] Ignatowska-Jankowska, B., Jankowski, M.M., and Swiergiel, A.H., 2011. Cannabidiol decreases body weight gain in rats: Involvement of CB2 receptors. [26] Tarragon, E., and Moreno, J.J., 2019. Cannabinoids, chemical senses, and regulation of feeding behavior. [27] Forefront Equine makes an excellent extruded CBD pellet without THC. Available on Dr. Getty's Free Shipping Store: [28] Hammell, D.C., Zhang, L.P., Ma, F., Abshire, S.M., et al., 2015. Transdermal cannabidiol reduces inflammation and pain-related behaviors in rat model of arthritis. Frontiers of Veterinary Science, volume 10.
Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, volume 416, number 1-2, 131-139.
Chemical Senses, Vol 44, pages 73-89.
http://bit.ly/2XhZuiI
http://bit.ly/321o5M9
http://bit.ly/2JezpvH
Pain, volume 160, number 1, 136-150.
American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, volume 42, number 4, 431-440.
European Journal of Pain, Vol 20, Number 6.
Journal of Biological Chemistry, volume 283, number 48, 33021-33025.
International Journal of Molecular Science, volume 19, number 9.
Hormone Molecular Biology and Clinical Investigation, Vol 36, Number 2.
Scientific Reports.
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Vol 24, Number 4.
Cannabis Cannabinoid Research, volume 2, number 1, 139-154.
http://bit.ly/2Xcq6BE
DVM360, September 2017, p 32-33.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA.
Surgical Neurology International, volume 9.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London Series B Biological Science, volume 367, number 1607, pages 3364-3378.
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Vol 25, Number 6.
Biomedical Research International.
Free Radical Biology and Medicine, volume 5, number 5.
Psychopharmacology, volume 223, number 1, 117-129.
Neuroscience Letters, 490, 82-84.
Chemical Senses, Vol 44, pages 73-89.
http://bit.ly/2KOL7Al
European Journal of Pain, Vol 20, Number 6.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cannabidiol (CBD) and horses: What is it good for? - Horsetalk.co.nz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CBD. Whether you're already using it, you're thinking about it, or just plain never heard of it, it's worth getting more familiar with. No, it is not the latest "snake oil" touting cures from hair loss to ingrown toenails. Instead, it is a chemical messenger in the "endocannabinoid system", a natural and crucial part of the body.

# data[].attributes.body
"Yes, they should get called out for what they did wrong, but the way the Internet does it just isn’t the right one. Having your social media mentions flooded by individuals demanding apologies or reminding you of that one insensitive comment you made in 2009, does not have the positive effect people wish it did. Instead, it will make people feel cornered and under attack, making them become so apprehensive about offending anyone that they will ultimately disappear from social media." Most of the time cancel culture doesn't even have the effect that it is meant to have. In addition most of the things people are being "cancelled" for is the things they did in the past, so why don't we leave cancel culture in the past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you've ever been on social media - especially Twitter - you probably have heard someone say a celebrity is 'cancelled' at least once. Particularly after 2016, the concept of 'cancel culture' quickly rose to fame, becoming part of our everyday virtual reality.
Its core idea is that everyone needs to be held accountable and publicly humiliated for their problematic actions - especially celebrities, given their social status and the influence they often provide to their young audience. The drill usually goes like this: a public figure says or does something offensive, hence the ensuing backlash on social media that forces them to acknowledge their actions. Eventually, they get cancelled - i.e. their career is ended by the general public, they lose fans and support from everyone.

That sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? Well, truth be told, it is easier said than done.
Who Deserves to Be Cancelled?
The main problem with 'cancel culture' is that the people who get 'cancelled' are hardly ever the ones who actually deserve it.

After all, the people who have done truly despicable things and who continue to exhibit problematic behavior without growing from their mistakes, simply do not care. Ergo, they don't let 'being cancelled' affect them in the least. The ones who are genuinely impacted by 'cancel culture' are the people who do care. They are the ones whose mistakes are usually the product of immaturity, uneducated upbringing and ignorance, and who have since then changed for the better.

Yes, they should get called out for what they did wrong, but the way the Internet does it just isn't the right one. Having your social media mentions flooded by individuals demanding apologies or reminding you of that one insensitive comment you made in 2009, does not have the positive effect people wish it did. Instead, it will make people feel cornered and under attack, making them become so apprehensive about offending anyone that they will ultimately disappear from social media.

Meanwhile, the really bad apples are still around, unbothered, and their career won't have suffered a single scratch.

A perfect example of this nonsense is the American rapper 6ix9ine, who I cannot for the life of me understand why still has a career. Even ignoring the fact that his music constantly reaches new levels of mediocrity, the man is racist, homophobic and a convicted pedophile. Yet, he still manages to top the charts. That's because he doesn't care about the fact he has acted and spoken in a questionable, controversial manner, nor does he feel he has to atone for his behavior. Hence, he keeps on making music, which fans keep buying, as they do not understand the seriousness of his actions.
Growing from Mistakes
Nowadays 'cancel culture' doesn't allow people to learn and grow from their mistakes anymore. Of course, I am just referring to those who have made mistakes because they were young and uneducated, not to those who are... well, criminals.

What 'cancel culture' fails to consider is that right now there is a higher social awareness and progressive enlightenment on the Internet, which was not present ten years ago. Again, this does not mean that celebrities do not deserve to be called out because of their misbehaviors - and educated. However, after being presented with new and better information on what is 'politically correct', it is more than possible for them to realize their wrongdoings and learn from them. Nevertheless, 'cancel culture' seems to not take this into account.

Furthermore, it makes it harder for people to differentiate between those who are genuinely apologetic for their ignorance and want to grow from it, and those who simply do not care. In fact, the fear of being cancelled leads celebrities to being overly cautious of what they say or do. It might seem like a good thing, but it actually just means that some of them might behave in a problematic way, but will do it privately in order to avoid losing fans and commercial success. Think about it: you might be supporting someone who doesn't deserve it, just because you are unaware of what their true mindset it.

This is a huge drawback of 'cancel culture', as it makes it harder to spot who actually should be cancelled.
And the Bad People Are Still Bad
One of the biggest problems with how 'cancel culture' is implemented is that it's so temporary that it is basically meaningless. Nowadays, we live in such a fast-paced society that even people's anger and indignation are short-lived. Yes, the person gets bashed and called out on every social media platform by furious fans, but that outrage lasts for merely a week or so.

Some of them are driven off social media.

This happens especially if the person who was 'cancelled' is a big name in the industry they're in, and therefore has lots of fans ready to back them up. Moreover, the sudden wave of forgiveness is more likely to occur if the celebrity just does not care and does not speak up about the issue. If they do talk about it - either with a post or an interview - it only adds fuel to the fire, as they bring more attention to the issue and prolong the frustrating situation, which is why some of them are driven off social media. However, if they do not speak up, everyone will soon forget about what happened, as quickly as they had become offended. That person who was 'cancelled' is simply forgiven, facing no real repercussions. Well, at least none that last.

Let's take Justin Bieber as an example. The Canadian singer has been called out on various occasions throughout the years for his problematic behaviors, from saying the N word to being an out-right creep. However, even though the whole Internet world seems to be done with him each time one of these incidents resurfaces or occurs, his songs still reach #1. He still has millions of adoring fans, who say they are 'cancelling' him one day but turn a blind eye the next one. Is it sudden memory loss, or just simple hypocrisy?

Recognizing that 'cancel culture' has its toxic flaws does not mean thinking people shouldn't be held accountable and called out for their problematic behaviors. It just means acknowledging that the way it's currently being done is ineffective at its best and counterproductive at its worst. Perhaps, it is time for us to realize that the only thing we should cancel is 'cancel culture' itself.
Cover: viarami
Reacties

reacties

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you've ever been on social media - especially Twitter - you probably have heard someone say a celebrity is 'cancelled' at least once. Particularly after 2016, the concept of 'cancel culture' quickly rose to fame, becoming part of our everyday virtual reality.

# data[].attributes.body
As 2020 comes to an end, the presidential election has came and gone. As citizens fought neck and neck for Biden and Trump only one could win. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are stepping into the white house because of the support from the latest able generation and the bipoc community. After so much that has already happened, the Trump administration has fallen to the ground and black voters take their stand. With Kamala being the first female, Asian and Black vice president she is gladly taking a stand in support for our country. Or so it seems. Both Biden and Kamala have multiple negative accounts against them, and they are proven to be true. Trump who was a just as worse choice may have been a step up from were we have out ourselves now. Biden and Harris were our last resorts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
opinion: black voters led america in the winning direction. now what? - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Black voters led America in the winning direction. Now what?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
America is long past excuses for failing to confront systemic racism, says Peniel Joseph. Black voters led the way to victory in 2020, Joseph argues, and it's time for the nation and the Biden-Harris administration to listen, learn and take action.

# data[].attributes.body
In the profession of law enforcement there are a variety of people who serve and are expected to respect and be dignified in their service. The hidden horrors of white supremacy, systematic racism, and involvement in other racially driven activities have fed off onto law enforcement officers and their performance. The government's , city, state, and country, responses to these properly backed up claims of unfairness and racism in the law enforcement systems are extremely lacking in what we as citizens want to see. Proper representation and a truly professional manner in the way we reinforce our laws is only a step away, but how long with it take?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Racial disparities have long pervaded every step of the criminal justice process, from police stops, searches, arrests, shootings and other uses of force to charging decisions, wrongful convictions, and sentences. As a result, many have concluded that a structural or institutional bias against people of color, shaped by long-standing racial, economic, and social inequities, infects the criminal justice system. These systemic inequities can also instill implicit biases - unconscious prejudices that favor in-groups and stigmatize out-groups - among individual law enforcement officials, influencing their day-to-day actions while interacting with the public.

Police reforms, often imposed after incidents of racist misconduct or brutality, have focused on addressing these unconscious manifestations of bias. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), for example, has required implicit bias training as part of consent decrees it imposes to root out discriminatory practices in law enforcement agencies. Such training measures are designed to help law enforcement officers recognize these unconscious biases in order to reduce their influence on police behavior.

These reforms, while well-intentioned, leave unaddressed an especially harmful form of bias, which remains entrenched within law enforcement: explicit racism. Explicit racism in law enforcement takes many forms, from membership or affiliation with violent white supremacist or far-right militant groups, to engaging in racially discriminatory behavior toward the public or law enforcement colleagues, to making racist remarks and sharing them on social media. While it is widely acknowledged that racist officers subsist within police departments around the country, federal, state, and local governments are doing far too little to proactively identify them, report their behavior to prosecutors who might unwittingly rely on their testimony in criminal cases, or protect the diverse communities they are sworn to serve.

Efforts to address systemic and implicit biases in law enforcement are unlikely to be effective in reducing the racial disparities in the criminal justice system as long as explicit racism in law enforcement continues to endure. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that it does.

The harms that armed law enforcement officers affiliated with violent white supremacist and anti-government militia groups can inflict on American society could hardly be overstated. Yet despite the FBI's acknowledgement of the links between law enforcement and these suspected terrorist groups, the Justice Department has no national strategy designed to identify white supremacist police officers or to protect the safety and civil rights of the communities they patrol.

Obviously, only a tiny percentage of law enforcement officials are likely to be active members of white supremacist groups. But one doesn't need access to secretive intelligence gathered in FBI terrorism investigations to find evidence of overt and explicit racism within law enforcement. Since 2000, law enforcement officials with alleged connections to white supremacist groups or far-right militant activities have been exposed in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and elsewhere. Research organizations have uncovered hundreds of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials participating in racist, nativist, and sexist social media activity, which demonstrates that overt bias is far too common. These officers' racist activities are often known within their departments, but only result in disciplinary action or termination if they trigger public scandals.

Few law enforcement agencies have policies that specifically prohibit affiliating with white supremacist groups. Instead, these officers typically face discipline, if at all, for more generally defined prohibitions against conduct detrimental to the department or for violations of anti-discrimination regulations or social media policies. Firings often lead to prolonged litigation, with dismissed officers claiming violations of their First Amendment speech and association rights. Most courts have upheld dismissals of police officers who have affiliated with racist or militant groups, following Supreme Court decisions limiting free speech rights for public employees to matters of public concern. Courts have given law enforcement agencies even greater latitude to restrict speech and association, citing their "heightened need for order, loyalty, morale and harmony."

Some officers who have associated with militant groups or engaged in racist behavior have not been fired, however, or have had their dismissals overturned by courts or in arbitration. Such due process is required to ensure integrity and equity in the disciplinary process and protect falsely accused police officers from unjust punishments. Certainly, there will be cases where an officer's behavior can be corrected with remedial measures short of termination. But leaving officers tainted by racist behavior in a job with immense discretion to take a person's life and liberty requires a detailed supervision plan to mitigate the potential threats they pose to the communities they police, implemented with sufficient transparency to restore public trust.

Progress in removing explicit racism from law enforcement has clearly been made since the civil rights era, when Ku Klux Klan-affiliated officers were far too common. But, as Georgetown University law professor Vida B. Johnson argues, "The system can never achieve its purported goal of fairness while white supremacists continue to hide within police departments." Trust in the police remains low among people of color, who are often victims of police violence and abuse and are disproportionately underserved as victims of crime. The failure of law enforcement to adequately respond to racist violence and hate crimes or properly police white supremacist riots in cities across the United States over the last several years has left many Americans concerned that bias in law enforcement is pervasive. This report examines the law enforcement response to racist behavior, white supremacy, and far-right militancy within the ranks and recommends policy solutions to inform a more effective response.

1

Joseph Guzman, "California Police Stop Black Drivers at Higher Rates, Analysis Finds," Changing America, The Hill, January 3, 2020, https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/476685-california-police-stop-black-drivers-at-higher-rates; Brad Heath, "Racial Gap in U.S. Arrest Rates: 'Staggering Disparity,'" USA Today, November 18, 2014, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/; German Lopez and Javier Zarracina, "Study: Black People Are 7 Times More Likely than White People to Be Wrongly Convicted of Murder," Vox, March 7, 2017, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/7/14834454/exoneration-innocence-prison-racism; German Lopez, "There Are Huge Racial Disparities in How US Police Use Force," Vox, November 14, 2018, https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/8/13/17938186/police-shootings-killings-racism-racial-disparities; Timothy Williams, "Black People Are Charged at a Higher Rate Than Whites. What if Prosecutors Didn't Know Their Race?" New York Times, June 12, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/prosecutor-race-blind-charging.html; and Christopher Ingraham, "Black Men Sentenced to More Time for Committing the Exact Same Crime as a White Person, Study Finds," Washington Post, November 16, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/16/black-men-sentenced-to-more-time-for-committing-the-exact-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/.

5

Becky Bratu, "Two Alabama Officers Put on Leave for Alleged Ties to 'Hate Group,'" NBC News, June 17, 2015, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/two-alabama-officers-put-leave-alleged-ties-hate-group-n377421; Michael Winter, "KKK Membership Sinks 2 Florida Cops," USA Today, July 14, 2014, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/14/florid-police-kkk/12645555/; Michelle Fox, "Texas Officers Fired for Membership in KKK," ABC News, January 7, 2006, https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93046&page=1; Andy Campbell, "KKK Cop Fired After Nazi Salute Photo Surfaces," Huffington Post, September 3, 2015, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kkk-cop-fired-nazi-salute_n_55e885d9e4b0c818f61b24c2; Angela Helm, "Color Me Shocked: 2 Virginia Police Officers Fired for Ties to White Supremacist Orgs," Root, April 22, 2019, https://www.theroot.com/color-me-shocked-2-virginia-police-officers-fired-for-1834211339; Phil Helsel, "Three Fired Over Nazi Salute Photo with West Virginia Corrections Employee," NBC News, December 6, 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/three-fired-over-nazi-salute-photo-west-virginia-corrections-employees-n1097566; State v. Henderson, 277 Neb. 240 (2009), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ne-supreme-court/1479842.html; Mariel Padilla, "Michigan Police Officer Is Terminated After K.K.K. Application Was Found in His Home," New York Times, September 13, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/us/officer-charles-anderson-ku-klux-klan.html; Nick Budnick, "The Cop Who Liked Nazis," Willamette Week, February 10, 2004 (updated January 24, 2017), https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-2933-the-cop-who-liked-nazis.html; Paighten Harkins, "Interim Colbert Police Chief to Resign amid Report of Connection to Neo-Nazi Websites," Tulsa World, August 27, 2017, https://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/interim-colbert-police-chief-to-resign-amid-report-of-connection/article_98d1bd9e-9ad8-553e-84cd-8d63d360e0c8.html; Katie Shepherd, "Clark County Sheriff Deputy Fired After Wearing a Proud Boys Sweatshirt," Willamette Week, July 20, 2018, https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2018/07/20/clark-county-sheriff-deputy-fired-after-wearing-a-proud-boys-sweatshirt/; Michael Kunzelman, "Connecticut Police Officer: I Quit Proud Boys Over Fears of 'Far-Left' Attacks," Hartford Courant, November 13, 2019, https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-connecticut-proud-boys-police-officer-20191113-73r6pb7zv5halbwja7le5jvjwu-story.html; George Joseph, Raven Rakia, and Ethan Corey, "Claims of Racism and Brutality Dog Los Angeles County Sheriff 'Deputy Gangs,'" Appeal, September 28, 2018, https://theappeal.org/claims-of-racism-brutality-dog-los-angeles-county-sheriff-deputy-gangs/; Richard Winton, "O.C. Deputy Under Investigation After Wearing Extremist Paramilitary Patch at George Floyd Protest," Los Angeles Times, June 3, 2020, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-03/orange-county-deputy-three-percenters-patch-george-floyd-protest; and "CPD Investigating After Officer Wore Extremist Militia Logo to Downtown Protest Saturday," CBS Chicago, June 9, 2020, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cpd-investigating-after-officer-wore-extremist-militia-logo-to-downtown-protest-saturday/ar-BB15dByT.

8

See, e.g., Garcetti, 547 U.S. 410, 417; Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 230 F.3d 1275, 1293 (11th Cir. 2000); Doggrell v. City of Anniston, 277 F. Supp. 3d 1239 (N.D. Ala. 2017), https://casetext.com/case/doggrell-v-city-of-anniston-1; and State v. Henderson, 277 Neb. 240. See also Robin D. Barnes, "Blue by Day and White by (K)night: Regulating the Political Affiliations of Law Enforcement and Military Personnel," Iowa Law Review 81 (1996): 1085.

11

See, e.g., Matt Coker, "7 Charged in Anaheim KKK Melee - But Stabby Klanner Not One of Them," OC Weekly, July 1, 2016, https://www.ocweekly.com/7-charged-in-anaheim-kkk-melee-but-stabby-klanner-not-one-of-them-7305812-2/; James Queally, "Ku Klux Klan Rally in Anaheim Erupts in Violence; 3 Are Stabbed and 13 Arrested," Los Angeles Times, February 26, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-klan-rally-in-anaheim-erupts-in-violence-one-man-stabbed-20160227-story.html; Sam Levin, "How a California Officer Protected Neo-Nazis and Targeted Their Victims," Guardian, January 25, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/25/california-police-neo-nazis-antifa-protest; Frank John Tristan, "Huntington Beach Pro-Trump March Turns into Attack on Anti-Trump Protestors," OC Weekly, March 26, 2017, https://www.ocweekly.com/huntington-beach-pro-trump-march-turns-into-attack-on-anti-trump-protesters-press-7991623/; Frances Robles, "As White Nationalist in Charlottesville Fired, Police 'Never Moved,'" New York Times, August 25, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/charlottesville-protest-police.html; and Arun Gupta, "Riotlandia: Why Portland has Become the Epicenter of Far-Right Violence," Intercept, August 26, 2019, https://theintercept.com/2019/08/16/portland-far-right-rally/.

Inadequate Response to Affiliations with White Supremacist and Militant Groups

The FBI's 2015 Counterterrorism Policy Directive and Policy Guide warns that "domestic terrorism investigations focused on militia extremists, white supremacist extremists, and sovereign citizen extremists often have identified active links to law enforcement officers." This alarming declaration followed a 2006 intelligence assessment, based on FBI investigations and open sources, that warned of "white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement . . . by organized groups and by self-initiated infiltration by law enforcement personnel sympathetic to white supremacist causes." Active links between law enforcement officials and the subjects of any terrorism investigation should raise alarms within our national security establishment, but the federal government has not responded accordingly.

The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have identified white supremacists as the most lethal domestic terrorist threat to the United States. In recent years, white supremacists have executed deadly rampages in Charleston, South Carolina, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and El Paso, Texas. Narrowly thwarted attempts by neo-Nazis to manufacture radiological "dirty" bombs in Maine in 2009 and Florida in 2017 show their dangerous capability and intent to unleash mass destruction. These groups also pose a lethal threat to law enforcement, as evidenced by recent attacks against Federal Protective Service officers and sheriff's deputies in California by far-right militants intent on starting the "Boogaloo" - a euphemism for a new civil war - which killed two and injured several others.

Any law enforcement officers associating with these groups should be treated as a matter of urgent concern. Operating under color of law, such officers put the lives and liberty of people of color, religious minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and anti-racist activists at extreme risk, both through the violence they can mete out directly and by their failure to properly respond when these communities are victimized by other racist violent crime. Biased policing also tears at the fabric of American society by undermining public trust in equal justice and the rule of law.

The FBI's 2006 assessment, however, takes a narrower view. It claims that "the primary threat" posed by the infiltration or recruitment of police officers into white supremacist or other far-right militant groups "arises from the areas of intelligence collection and exploitation, which can lead to investigative breaches and can jeopardize the safety of law enforcement sources or personnel." Though the FBI redacted significant passages of the assessment before releasing it to the public, the document does not appear to address any of the potential harms these bigoted officers pose to communities of color they police or to society at large. Rather, it identifies the main problem as a risk to the integrity of FBI investigations and the security of its agents and informants.

When asked more generally about the issue, McGarrity said he would be "suspect" of white supremacist police officers, but that their ideology was a First Amendment-protected right. The 2006 assessment addresses this concern, however, correctly summarizing Supreme Court precedent on the issue: "Although the First Amendment's freedom of association provision protects an individual's right to join white supremacist groups for the purposes of lawful activity, the government can limit the employment opportunities of group members who hold sensitive public sector jobs, including jobs within law enforcement, when their memberships would interfere with their duties."

More importantly, the FBI's 2015 counterterrorism policy, which McGarrity was responsible for implementing, indicates not just that members of law enforcement might hold white supremacist views, but that FBI domestic terrorism investigations have often identified "active links" between the subjects of these investigations and law enforcement officials. Its proposed remedy is stunningly inadequate, however. The guide simply instructs agents to use the "silent hit" feature of the Terrorist Screening Center watchlist so that police officers searching for themselves or their white supremacist associates could not ascertain whether they were under FBI scrutiny.

While it is important to protect the integrity of FBI terrorism investigations and the safety of law enforcement personnel, Congress has also tasked the FBI with protecting the civil rights of American communities often targeted with discriminatory stops, searches, arrests, and brutality at the hands of police officers. The issue in these cases isn't ideology but law enforcement connections to subjects of active terrorism investigations. It is unlikely that the FBI would be similarly hesitant to act if it received information that U.S. law enforcement officials were actively linked to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS, or to criminal organizations like street gangs or the Mafia. Yet many of the white supremacist groups investigated by the FBI have longer and more violent histories than these other organizations. The federal response to known connections of law enforcement officers to white supremacist and far-right militant groups has been strikingly insufficient.

9

FBI, Counterterrorism Division, White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement, 6. See also Pickering, 391 U.S. 563; Garcetti, 547 U.S. 410, 417.

A Long History of Law Enforcement Involvement in White Supremacist Violence

White supremacy was central to the founding of the United States, sanctified in law and practice. It was the driving ideology behind the European colonization of North America, the subjugation of Native Americans, and the enslavement of kidnapped Africans and their descendants. Policing in the early American colonies was often less about crime control than maintaining the racial social order, ensuring a stable labor force, and protecting the property interests of the white privileged class. Slave patrols were among the first public policing organizations formed in the American colonies. Put simply, white supremacy was the law these earliest public officials were sworn to enforce. Even states such as New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois that banned slavery enacted racist "Black laws," which restricted travel and denied civil rights regarding voting, education, employment, and even residency for free Black people. The U.S. Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required law enforcement officials in free states to return escaped slaves to their enslavers in the South.

When slavery was finally abolished in the United States after the Civil War, de jure white supremacy lived on through Black codes and Jim Crow laws. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, an openly racist law halting Chinese immigration and denying naturalization to Chinese nationals already living in the United States. The Immigration Act of 1924 was also explicitly racist, codifying strict national origin quotas to limit Italian, eastern European, and nonwhite immigration. The law barred all immigration from Japan and other Asian countries not already excluded by previous legislation.

As the United States expanded westward, government agents enforced policies of violent ethnic cleansing against Native Americans and Mexican Americans. In the early 20th century, Texas Rangers led lynching parties that targeted Mexican Americans residing in Texas border towns on specious allegations of banditry. Where the laws were deemed insufficient to dissuade nonwhites and non-Protestants from exercising their civil rights, reactionary groups such as the Ku Klux Klan used terrorist violence to enforce white supremacy. Law enforcement officials often participated in this violence directly or supported it by refusing to fulfill their duty to protect the peace and hold lawbreakers to account. By the 1920s, the KKK alone claimed 1 million members nationwide from New England to California, and had fully infiltrated federal, state, and local governments to advance its exclusionist agenda.

Many states outside the Deep South maintained "sundown towns" where police officers and vigilante mobs enforced official and quasi-official policies prohibiting Black (and often other nonwhite) people from remaining in town past sunset. Into the 1970s, there were an estimated 10,000 sundown towns across the United States. Police enforcement of white supremacy was never just a regional problem.

7

See, e.g., Clay Risen, "The Ku Klux Klan's Surprising History," review of The Second Coming of the KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and the American Political Tradition, by Linda Gordon, New York Times, December 4, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/books/review/linda-gordon-the-second-coming-of-the-kkk.html; Patrick Lacroix, review of Not a Catholic Nation: The Ku Klux Klan Confronts New England in the 1920s, by Mark Paul Richard, Humanities and Social Sciences Online, March 2016, https://networks.h-net.org/node/15697/reviews/117687/lacroix-richard-not-catholic-nation-ku-klux-klan-confronts-new-england; and Cecilia Rasmussen, "Klan's Tentacles Once Extended to Southland," Los Angeles Times, May 30, 1999, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-may-30-me-42577-story.html.

8

James W. Loewen, Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism (New York: The New Press, 2005); and James Loewen, "Was Your Town a Sundown Town?," UU World, February 18, 2008, https://www.uuworld.org/articles/was-your-town-sundown-town.

Hidden in Plain Sight

In 1964, civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner went missing in Mississippi during the Freedom Summer voter registration drive, shortly after being released from a Philadelphia, Mississippi, jail where they had been taken to pay a speeding fine. President Lyndon Johnson ordered FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to send FBI agents to find them. Searchers found the bodies of eight black men, including two college students who were working on the voter registration drive, before an informant's tip finally led the agents to an earthen dam where Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were buried. After local law enforcement refused to investigate the murders, the Justice Department charged 19 Ku Klux Klansmen with conspiring to violate Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner's civil rights. Two current and two former law enforcement officials were among those charged. An all-white jury convicted seven of the Klansman but only one of the law enforcement officers.

While the Mississippi Burning case was the most notorious, it was far from the last time white supremacist law enforcement officers engaged in racist violence. There is an unbroken chain of law enforcement involvement in violent, organized racist activity right up to the present. In the 1980s, the investigation of a KKK firebombing of a Black family's home in Kentucky exposed a Jefferson County police officer as a Klan leader. In a deposition, the officer admitted that he directed a 40-member Klan subgroup called the Confederate Officers Patriot Squad (COPS), half of whom were police officers. He added that his involvement in the KKK was known to his police department and tolerated so long as he didn't publicize it.

Only rarely do these cases lead to criminal charges. In 2017, Florida state prosecutors convicted three prison guards of plotting with fellow KKK members to murder an inmate. Federal prosecutions are even rarer. In 2019, the Justice Department charged a New Jersey police chief with a hate crime for assaulting a Black teenager during a trespassing arrest after several of his deputies recorded his numerous racist rants. This incident marked the first time in more than a decade that federal prosecutors charged a law enforcement official for an on-duty use of force as a hate crime. A jury convicted the police chief of lying to FBI agents but was unable to reach a verdict on the hate crime charge, which prosecutors vowed to retry.

More often, police officers with ties to white supremacist groups or overt racist behavior are subjected to internal disciplinary procedures rather than prosecution. In 2001, two Texas sheriff's deputies were fired after they exposed their KKK affiliation in an attempt to recruit other officers. In 2005, an internal investigation revealed a Nebraska state trooper was participating in a members-only KKK chat room. He was fired in 2006 but won his job back in an arbitration mandated by the state's collective bargaining agreement. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld his dismissal, determining that the arbitration decision violated "the explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy that laws should be enforced without racial or religious discrimination, and the public should reasonably perceive this to be so." Three police officers in Fruitland Park, Florida, were fired or chose to resign over a five-year period from 2009 to 2014 after their Klan membership was discovered. In 2015, a Louisiana police officer was fired after a photograph surfaced showing him giving a Nazi salute at a Klan rally.

In some cases, law enforcement officials who detect white supremacist activity in their ranks take no action unless the matter becomes a public scandal. For example, in Anniston, Alabama, city officials learned in 2009 of a police officer's membership in the League of the South, a white supremacist secessionist group. The police chief, however, determined that the officer's membership in the group did not affect his performance and allowed him to remain on the job. In the following years the officer was promoted to sergeant and eventually lieutenant. It wasn't until 2015, after the Southern Poverty Law Center published an article about a speech he had given at a League of the South conference in which he discussed his recruiting efforts among other law enforcement officers, that the police department fired him. A second Anniston police lieutenant found to have attended the same League of the South rally was permitted to retire. The fired officer appealed his dismissal. After a three-day hearing, a local civil service board upheld his removal. The officer then filed a lawsuit alleging that his firing violated his First Amendment free speech and association rights, but a federal court affirmed the termination.

The Anniston example demonstrates the need for transparency, public accountability, and compliance with due process to successfully resolve these cases. The Anniston Police Department and city officials knew about these officers' problematic involvement in a racist organization for years, but it took public pressure to finally compel action. They then responded correctly, in awareness of the public scrutiny, by dismissing the officer in a manner that provided the due process necessary to withstand judicial review. The department then implemented a policy requiring police officers to sign a statement affirming that they are not members of "a group that will cause embarrassment to the City of Anniston or the Anniston police department." It requested conflict resolution training from the DOJ Community Relations Service. These were positive steps to begin rebuilding public trust. But as in many of these cases, during the nine years when avowed white supremacist police officers served in the Anniston Police Department (including in leadership positions), there was not a full evaluation or public accounting of their activities. The Alabama NAACP requested that the DOJ and U.S. attorney examine the officers' previous cases for potential civil rights violations, but there is no evidence that either ever initiated such an investigation. This decision forfeited another opportunity to restore public confidence in law enforcement.

Unfortunately, there is no central database that lists law enforcement officers fired for misconduct. As a result, some police officers dismissed for involvement in racist activity are able to secure other law enforcement jobs. In 2017, the police chief in Colbert, Oklahoma, resigned after local media reported his decades-long involvement with neo-Nazi skinhead groups and his ownership of neo-Nazi websites. A neighboring Oklahoma police department hired him the following year, claiming he had renounced his previous racist activities and held a clean record as a police officer.

Prosecutors have an important role in protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system from the potential misconduct of explicitly racist officers. The landmark 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland requires prosecutors and the police to provide criminal defendants with all exculpatory evidence in their possession. A later decision in Giglio v. United States expanded this requirement to include the disclosure of evidence that may impeach a government witness. Prosecutors keep a register of law enforcement officers whose previous misconduct could reasonably undermine the reliability of their testimony and therefore would need to be disclosed to defense attorneys. This register is often referred to as a "Brady list" or "no call list."

Georgetown Law Professor Vida B. Johnson has argued that evidence of a law enforcement officer's explicitly racist behavior could reasonably be expected to impeach his or her testimony. Prosecutors, therefore, should be required to include these officers on Brady lists to ensure defendants they testify against have access to the potentially exculpating evidence of their explicitly racist behavior. This reform would be an important measure in blunting the impact of racist police officers on the criminal justice system. In 2019, progressive St. Louis prosecutor Kimberly Gardner placed all 22 of the St. Louis police officers that the Plain View Project identified as posting racist content on Facebook on her office's no call list.

1

Lack of Mitigation Policies to Protect Communities Against Biased Police Officers

The process required to properly address a police officer's known identification with groups like the KKK or neo-Nazi skinheads, which have decades-long histories of violence, might seem arduous, but these are actually the easy cases. Far more frequently, law enforcement officers express bias in ways that are more difficult for police administrators to navigate.

New white supremacist organizations and other far-right militant groups can often form extemporaneously, then splinter, change names, and employ disinformation campaigns to mask their illicit activities, which makes it difficult to determine whether an officer's affiliation with a particular group presents a conflict with law enforcement obligations or not. For instance, sheriff's deputies in Washington State and Louisiana were fired in 2018 for publicly supporting and joining the Proud Boys, a far-right "Western chauvinist" fight club founded in 2016 that disavows racism but often acts in concert with white supremacist groups during violent rallies. The East Hampton, Connecticut, police department came to a different conclusion about such an affiliation in 2019, however, and determined that an officer who joined the Proud Boys and paid membership fees did not violate department policies and would face no discipline. (The officer claimed to have left the group.)

Other law enforcement officials do not associate with white supremacist groups, but engage in overtly racist activities in public, on social media, or over law enforcement-only communication channels and internet chat rooms. In a 2019 report, the Plain View Project documented 5,000 patently bigoted social media posts by 3,500 accounts identified as belonging to current and former law enforcement officials. The report sparked dozens of investigations across the country. The Philadelphia Police Department, for example, placed 72 officers on administrative duties pending an investigation into their racist social media activity, ultimately suspending 15 with intent to dismiss. Other officers will face disciplinary action, including suspensions, but will remain on the force. Thirteen of 25 Dallas police officers investigated for objectionable social media postings received disciplinary actions ranging from counseling to suspensions without pay. Only 2 of the 22 current St. Louis police officers identified in the report were terminated. The St. Louis prosecutor placed all 22 of them on a list of police officers that her office would not call as witnesses, however.

In 2019, an internal U.S. Customs and Border Protection investigation revealed that 62 Border Patrol agents, including the agency's chief, participated in a secret Facebook group that included racist, nativist, and misogynistic material, including threats to members of Congress. It is unclear whether disciplinary measures have been taken against these agents. The Border Patrol has tacitly supported vigilante activities by border militia groups on the Southwest border that have demonstrated a propensity for illegal violence over many years.

Four Jasper, Alabama, police officers received two-week suspensions for making an "OK" hand signal in a group photograph after a drug bust. The controversial gesture signifies "white power" in the far-right subculture, but is also innocuous and commonplace in other contexts, which provides those who use it with cover to claim benign intentions. In the context of the photograph, the intent of the gesture was clear, but the officers were allowed to remain on the job. The mayor of Jasper suggested that the department may require diversity training in the future.

There are cases when an officer's conduct may indicate bias but does not necessarily justify termination, perhaps because of unclear policies. A photograph of a tattoo on the bare forearm of a Philadelphia police officer caused controversy when observers noted that it resembled Nazi iconography. The officer claimed he was not a Nazi and that the tattoo, which included a stylized eagle and the word "Fatherland," simply represented his German heritage. The department, which lacked a specific tattoo policy, cleared the officer of wrongdoing. It subsequently adopted a policy prohibiting "offensive, extremist, indecent, racist or sexist [tattoos] while on duty." The officer in question was grandfathered in and allowed to remain on the job despite the tattoo, though he agreed to cover it while working. Previously published material linking the officer to a neo-Nazi group was reportedly not considered during the investigation, which determined that he had never "expressed any racial bias on the job." The officer's patrol duties were not altered, leaving members of the community concerned.

When a police department fails to address allegations of officer involvement in white supremacist activities in a timely and transparent manner, it can undermine the public's perceptions of an entire department, particularly when use of force issues arise. For example, in Portland, Oregon, the National Lawyers Guild filed an excessive force lawsuit against a police officer who pepper-sprayed nonviolent antiwar protesters, including children and a TV camerawoman, in 2002 and 2003. The city of Portland paid $300,000 to settle the lawsuit, but the officer was not disciplined and instead received a promotion. During the lawsuit, however, a whistleblower came forward and alleged that as a young man, the officer was an Adolf Hitler admirer who publicly shouted racist and homophobic rhetoric, vandalized property with Nazi graffiti, dressed in Nazi uniforms, and collected Nazi memorabilia. A second longtime friend of the officer later confirmed these allegations and contended that the officer had maintained his Nazi ideology while working at the Portland Police Bureau. He provided evidence that the officer had, while working for the police department, illegally erected a memorial to five Nazi soldiers, including one SS officer suspected of war crimes, in a public park. The officer dismantled the shrine and someone reportedly stashed the plaque in the Portland city attorney's office, where it remained undiscovered until after the brutality lawsuit had concluded. The officer later claimed that he was not a Nazi but just a "history geek."

This history became relevant because the Portland Police Bureau was again accused of bias in its response to a series of violent rallies instigated by far-right militants and white supremacist groups from 2016 through 2019. Portland police and DHS agents appeared inappropriately sympathetic to violent members of the far-right groups, while conducting mass arrests and indiscriminately using less-lethal munitions against antiracist and antifascist counterprotesters. DHS officers were captured on video soliciting the assistance of militia members to arrest antiracist protesters.

A draft report of an Independent Police Review investigation into the bureau's response to the rallies appeared to substantiate these concerns. It quoted a police lieutenant who "felt the right-wing protesters were 'much more mainstream' than the left-wing protesters." Allegations of the bureau's bias surfaced again when Willamette Week, Portland's alternative weekly newspaper, published friendly text messages between a Portland Police Bureau lieutenant and the out-of-state leader of a far-right group whose members had engaged in violence at these rallies. The texts included advice on how one member with an active warrant could avoid arrest and details about the movements of opposing groups. The bureau later claimed the texts were intended to gather intelligence and cooperation from the far-right group to prevent violence at the rallies. The FBI brought no charges even though several of the violent far-right militants had traveled interstate in order to engage in the rallies.

The Portland Police Bureau was not the only law enforcement agency criticized for its apparent bias as white supremacists and far-right militants engaged in violent protests around the country. California Highway Patrol investigators treated neo-Nazi skinheads who stabbed antiracist counterprotesters at a 2016 Sacramento rally as victims and sought their cooperation in investigating the counterprotesters and a wounded Black journalist. Police in Anaheim, California, arrested seven antiracism protesters at a KKK rally in 2016, but did not charge the Klansman who stabbed three people.

In Huntington Beach, California, park police refused to investigate the battery of OC Weekly journalists by members of the white supremacist Rise Above Movement at a 2017 pro-Donald Trump march, citing a lack of resources. The Orange County district attorney did, however, prosecute an antifascist protester who attempted to defend the journalists by slapping one of the white supremacist attackers. The FBI later charged four members of the Rise Above Movement for engaging in violence at a series of riots, including the Huntington Beach attack, but a federal judge dismissed the charges, arguing that the 50-year-old Anti-Riot Act was unconstitutional.

4

Alicia Victoria Lozano, "13 Philadelphia Officers to Be Fired Over Racist, Violent Facebook Posts," NBC10 Philadelphia, July 18, 2019, https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/philadelphia-police-officers-facebook-posts/170494/; and Chris Palmer, "2 More Philly Cops to Be Fired in Facebook Probe, Bringing Total to 15," Philadelphia Inquirer, September 11, 2019, https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-police-facebook-scandal-15-cops-fired-christine-coulter-20190911.html.

10

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), Collaborative Reform Initiative: An Assessment of the San Francisco Police Department, Department of Justice, October 2016, xi, https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/jrp/DOJ-Report.pdf.

31

Sam Levin, "California Police Worked with Neo-Nazis to Pursue 'Anti-Racist' Activists, Documents Show," Guardian, February 9, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/09/california-police-white-supremacists-counter-protest; Sam Levin, "Stabbed at a Neo-Nazi Rally, Called a Criminal: How Police Targeted a Black Activist," Guardian, May 25, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/25/neo-nazi-rally-california-stabbing-police-target-black-activist; Sam Levin, "How a California Officer Protected Neo-Nazis and Targeted Their Victims," Guardian, January 25, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/25/california-police-neo-nazis-antifa-protest.

33

Frank John Tristan, "Rise Above, Unmasked: A Former Weekly Intern Recalls How His Surf City Assault Became an FBI Criminal Probe into an Alt-Right Group," OC Weekly, November 8, 2018, https://www.ocweekly.com/rise-above-unmasked-a-former-weekly-intern-recalls-how-his-surf-city-assault-became-an-fbi-criminal-probe-into-an-alt-right-group/; and R. Scott Moxley, "DA Whitewashed Neo-Nazi in Assault Trial from 2017 Trump MAGA Rally," OC Weekly, August 21, 2019, https://www.ocweekly.com/white-supremacist-antifa-trump/#.XV4Die-38AR.twitter.

Justice Department Shirks Its Duty to Police Law Enforcement Misconduct

Not only does the U.S. Justice Department fail to properly prioritize investigations of white supremacist violence and hate crimes, it also fails to utilize all necessary resources to address police violence and racism. Federal prosecutors declined to prosecute 96 percent of FBI civil rights investigations involving police misconduct from 1995 to 2015, turning down more than 12,700 complaints, according to a Reuters analysis of DOJ records.

Federal prosecutors do face a high evidentiary bar when bringing criminal cases against law enforcement officials, which require proof that the officers willfully intended to violate the victim's civil rights in their use of force. It is not enough to prove that an officer's intentional use of excessive force resulted in a denial of a victim's constitutional rights. The civil rights statute that covers police brutality, 18 U.S.C. § 242, requires prosecutors to prove that police officers intended to use excessive force and that they did so with the specific intent to violate the victim's constitutional rights.

In addition to criminal penalties, the Justice Department also has the authority under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and § 3789d(c)(3) to bring civil suits against law enforcement agencies if it can demonstrate a "pattern or practice" of civil rights violations. Civil suits have a lower evidentiary bar, but they target department-wide problems rather than individual officers' misconduct. These cases often reach settlement agreements or "consent decrees," which provide for a period of DOJ oversight of agreed upon reform efforts. The Obama administration opened 20 pattern and practice investigations of police departments, doubling the number initiated by the Bush administration, and entered into at least 14 consent decrees with police agencies. The Justice Department has not developed metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts in curbing police violence or civil rights abuses, however.

The Trump administration abandoned police reform efforts championed by Obama's Justice Department. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a review of civil rights pattern and practice cases and, on his last day in office, signed a memo establishing more stringent requirements for Justice Department attorneys seeking to open them, which limited the utility of this tool in curbing systemic police misconduct. Sessions also killed a program operated by the DOJ Office of Community Oriented Policing Services that evaluated police department practices and offered corrective recommendations in a more collaborative way that avoided litigation. Attorney General William Barr has indicated similar disdain for law enforcement oversight, once threatening that communities that do not give support and respect to law enforcement "might find themselves without the police protection they need."

The Justice Department offers civil rights and implicit bias training to law enforcement and often mandates it in consent decrees following pattern and practice lawsuits. While this training may be important to help sensitize law enforcement to unconscious bias, its effectiveness in curbing police bias remains unproven. An obvious deficiency in implicit training sessions is the failure to address overt racism and white supremacy within law enforcement. A police trainer quoted in The Atlantic said overt racism is "just something that you don't admit. . . . If we admit that, then what does it mean about how we serve the public?" Another told The Forward, "If [antibias training] is not presented in a very nimble way, officers will assume that what you're saying is that officers are racist. . . . In my experience, that has tended to close officers up to whatever content you provide." A third trainer told MSN.com, "When they walk into the classroom, the officers are somewhere between defensive and downright hostile. They think we're gonna shake our fingers at them and call them racist." Some studies suggest that implicit bias training can even be counterproductive by reinforcing racial stereotypes.

During the June 2019 House oversight committee hearing discussed earlier in this report, Representative Clay asked Deputy Assistant Director Calvin Shivers, who manages the FBI's civil rights section, whether the bureau provides any resources or training to state and local police departments to help them identify white supremacists attempting to infiltrate their agencies. Shivers said the training that the FBI's civil rights section provides to law enforcement is focused on helping them identify hate crimes that may occur within their jurisdictions. He did not identify any training focused on identifying and weeding out officers who actively participate in white supremacist and far-right militant groups.

The continued presence of even a small number of far-right militants, white supremacists, and other overt racists in law enforcement has an outsized impact on public safety and on public trust in the criminal justice system and cannot be ignored. Leaving individual agencies to police themselves in a piecemeal fashion has not proven effective at restoring public confidence in law enforcement. Instead, there should be a comprehensive plan - one that involves federal, state, and local governments - to ensure that law enforcement agencies do not tolerate overtly racist conduct. The final section of this paper proposes several recommendations to include in such a plan.

11

See Ari Feldman, "Activists Want Bias Training for Cops. ADL Provides It. But Does It Work?," Forward, June 17, 2020, https://forward.com/news/national/448948/police-george-floyd-protest-implicit-bias/; Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, "Implicit Bias Training Doesn't Work," Bloomberg Opinion, January 4, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-01-04/implicit-bias-training-isn-t-improving-corporate-diversity?sref=LSnlJj5m; Michael Hobbes, "'Implicit Bias' Trainings Don't Actually Change Police Behavior," Huffington Post, June 12, 2020, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/implicit-bias-training-doesnt-actually-change-police-behavior_n_5ee28fc3c5b60b32f010ed48; and Jeremy Stahl, "The NYPD Paid $4.5 Million for a Bias Trainer. She Says She's Not the Solution," Slate, June 18, 2020, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/lorie-fridell-implicit-bias-policing.html.

Protest Policing Reveals Law Enforcement Bias

The affinity some police officers have shown for armed far-right militia groups at protests is confounding given that many states, including California, Illinois, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington, have laws barring unregulated paramilitary activities. And it is most troubling because far-right militants have often killed police officers. The overlap between militia members and the Boogaloo movement - whose adherents have been arrested for manufacturing Molotov cocktails in preparation for an attack at a Black Lives Matter protest in Nevada, inciting a riot in South Carolina, and shooting, bombing, and killing police officers in California - highlights the threat that police engagement with these groups poses to their law enforcement partners.

6

Jeremy Roebuck, Ellie Rushing, and Oona Goodin-Smith, "Philly's Police Union Says It Didn't Invite Proud Boys to a Pence After-Party. It Didn't Ask Them to Leave, Either," Philadelphia Inquirer, July 10, 2020, https://www.inquirer.com/news/proud-boys-philly-police-fop-mike-pence-mcnesby-trump-alt-right-20200710.html.

8

Assessing the Threat from Accelerationists and Militia Extremists: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intelligence and Counterterrorism of the H. Comm. on Homeland Security, 116th Cong. 12 (2020) (statement of Heidi L. Beirich, cofounder and executive vice president, Global Project Against Hate and Extremism), https://homeland.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony%20-%20Beirich.pdf; and Robert Gearty, "2 Affiliated with 'Boogaloo' Extremist Group Charged with Inciting a Riot: SC Sheriff," Fox News, June 6, 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/us/2-affiliated-with-boogaloo-extremist-group-charged-with-inciting-a-riot-sc-sheriff; Dan Noyes, "I-Team: Air Force Sergeant Arrested on Suspicion for Killing of Deputy in Santa Cruz County," ABC7 News (San Francisco), June 8, 2020, https://abc7news.com/steven-carrillo-santa-cruz-carillo-california-sheriff-deputy-killed/6236742/.

Recommendations

Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Agencies

The failure of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to aggressively respond to evidence of explicit racism among police officers undermines public confidence in fair and impartial law enforcement. Worse, it signals to white supremacists and far-right militants that their illegal acts enjoy government approval and authorization, making them all the more brazen and dangerous. Winning back public trust requires transparent and equal enforcement of the law, effective oversight, and public accountability that prioritizes targeted communities' interests.

Where police officers are found to be involved in white supremacist or far-right militant activities, racist violence, or related misconduct, police departments should initiate mitigation plans designed to ensure public safety and uphold the integrity of the law. Mitigation plans could include referrals to prosecutors, dismissals, other disciplinary actions, limitations of assignments to reduce potentially problematic contact with the public, retraining, and intensified supervision and auditing. Law enforcement officials and prosecutors have an obligation to provide defendants exculpating information in their possession, including information about police witnesses' misconduct that may reasonably impeach their testimony. Prosecutors should include officers known to have engaged in overtly racist behavior to Brady lists. These lists should be shared among federal, state, and local prosecutors' offices to ensure fair trials for all defendants in all jurisdictions.

The most effective way for law enforcement agencies to restore public trust and prevent racism from influencing law enforcement actions is to prohibit individuals who are members of white supremacist groups or who have a history of explicitly racist conduct from becoming law enforcement officers in the first place, or from remaining officers once bias is demonstrated. All law enforcement agencies should do the following:

Establish clear policies regarding participation in white supremacist organizations and other far-right militant groups, and on overt and explicit expressions of racism - with specificity regarding tattoos, patches, and insignia as well as social media postings. These policies should be properly vetted by legal counsel to ensure compliance with constitutional rights, state and local laws, and collective bargaining agreements, and they must be clearly explained to staff.

Hire a diverse workforce to more accurately reflect the demographic makeup of the communities the agency serves, and promote them fairly through the ranks.

Establish mitigation plans when biased police officers are detected. Mitigation plans could include referrals to internal affairs, local prosecutors, or the DOJ for investigation and prosecution; termination or other disciplinary action; limitations of assignments to reduce potentially problematic contact with the public; retraining; and intensified supervision and auditing.

Establish reporting mechanisms to ensure evidence of overtly racist behavior by a police officer is provided to prosecutors and employ Brady lists or similar reporting mechanisms to ensure defendants receive notice.

Encourage whistleblowing and protect whistleblowers.

Federal Government

Congress should direct the Justice Department to do the following:

Immediately establish a working group to examine law enforcement associations with white supremacist and other far-right militant groups to assess the scope and nature of the problem in a report to Congress.

Develop an evidence-based national strategy based on this review, designed to protect the security and civil liberties of communities policed by law enforcement officers who are active in white supremacist or far-right militant organizations. A national strategy will ensure U.S. attorneys and FBI offices across the country properly prioritize these investigations and harmonize their tactics to guarantee equal justice for all. The national strategy should include data and metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the methodologies it employs.

Require the FBI to survey its domestic terrorism investigations involving white supremacists and other overtly racist or fascist militant groups to document and report to the DOJ all indications of active links between these groups and law enforcement officials. This would both inform the department's assessment and national strategy and, where evidence of potential civil rights violations or other criminal activities by these law enforcement officers exists, allow investigations to be initiated.

Require the FBI to determine whether any law enforcement officials it investigates for civil rights violations or other criminal matters have connections to violent white supremacist organizations or other far-right militant groups, have a record of discriminatory behavior, or have a history of posting explicitly racist commentary in public or on social media platforms. This information should be provided to FBI agents assigned to domestic terrorism matters for investigative and intelligence purposes, and to federal, state, and local prosecutors to consider their inclusion on Brady lists.

Require the FBI to report any federal, state, or local official assigned to a federal task force who is discovered during initial screenings or periodic background investigations to have active links to any white supremacist or other militant groups, to have engaged in racist behavior, or to have posted overtly racist commentary to on social media to the DOJ and to their departments. Where appropriate based on available evidence, the Justice Department should bar these officials from further participation with federal task forces and report the information to appropriate departmental heads and state and local prosecutors for potential inclusion on Brady lists.

Analyze the data collected by the FBI in its law enforcement use of force database to assist in developing the national strategy. The FBI should evaluate each use of force complaint for indications that racial or ethnic bias motivated the violence. Where evidence reasonably indicates a violation of federal, state, or local laws, cases should be referred for prosecution.

Establish a formal mitigation plan to implement when evidence indicates that an identified law enforcement officer poses a public security threat or a risk of harm to any protected class or community. Such a plan could include federal, state, or local investigations and prosecutions; civil rights lawsuits and consent decrees; reporting information identifying the officer to other federal, state, or local authorities for appropriate employment action; and placement of identified officers on Brady lists maintained by federal, state, and local prosecutors to ensure that defendants in criminal cases and plaintiffs in civil actions against these officers have appropriate impeachment evidence available.

Establish a public hotline for reporting racist activity by law enforcement officials and strengthen whistleblower protections for federal law enforcement agents.

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019, a Senate bill introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), includes a provision that requires the FBI to assess the threat posed by white supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of law enforcement and the military. This assessment should be informed by data collected from FBI investigations and surveys of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and from data collected for the law enforcement use of force database.

Lastly, Congress should pass the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2019 to ban all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies from profiling based on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Banning racial profiling would mark a significant step toward mitigating the potential harm caused by racist officers undetected within the ranks.

Examples abound for successful alternative methods that can greatly improve the current criminal legal system.

Proponents of the Big Lie are removing obstacles to stealing elections in states around the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism, White Supremacy, and Far-Right Militancy in Law Enforcement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Introduction Racial disparities have long pervaded every step of the criminal justice process, from police stops, searches, arrests, shootings and other uses of force to charging decisions, wrongful convictions, and sentences. As a result, many have concluded that a structural or institutional bias against people of color, shaped by long-standing racial, economic, and social inequities, infects the criminal justice system.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article there are personal stories from people who have given their animals CBD. This can show the benefits of giving this to your animals and how it will positively or negatively affect them.

# data[].attributes.body
"The Equal Rights Amendment would ensure equal rights for all Americans regardless of gender. It needs to be ratified by 38 states to become a part of the U.S. Constitution." These states shouldn't have to ratify this. Equal rights should be here no matter what. Every gender should be treated equally.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BELOIT-Three area social studies teachers who attended a workshop at Harvard Business School during the summer of 2019 will give a presentation on the history behind the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) on Saturday.

The presentation will be at 10 a.m. at the Beloit Public Library, or it can be viewed online through Go To Meeting. Only 15 people will be allowed to attend the in-person presentation at the library and they must register at the library, according to Deb Fallon, chair of the League of Women Voters membership committee.

Frank Crivello, of Clinton High School, will be presenting as well as Beloit Memorial High School teachers Matt Flynn and James Hoey. They will discuss democracy and women's rights in America, teaching the lesson like they would do in a classroom.

The teachers will use the methodology they learned about from Harvard, Fallon said.

Crivello, Flynn and Hoey were awarded an all-expense trip to Boston in August of 2019 through the Harvard Business School after writing an essay and doing a phone interview.

The workshop was part of the Harvard Case Method Project of Teaching History, with the goal of making history come alive for students. The workshop taught educators how to use real case studies of incidents in history to engage students and produce an increased interest in voting, political engagement and constructive debate. Although the case students were first used in the business school, educators are using them more in liberal arts education as well.

Flynn said the presentation for Beloit was originally scheduled for last spring, but then COVID hit.

"The League decided they wanted us to look at the Equal Rights Amendment case which focuses on the rights of women from colonial times through the 20th Century. It is especially relevant this year with the 100 year anniversary of the 19th Amendment and the presidential election," Flynn said.

Flynn said he, Hoey and Crivello all held case studies with students last year in class and had wonderful discussions.

"We are predicting the case study with community members will go just as well and help promote civic engagement throughout the community," Flynn said.

The Equal Rights Amendment would ensure equal rights for all Americans regardless of gender. It needs to be ratified by 38 states to become a part of the U.S. Constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teachers to present on Equal Rights Amendment on Oct. 31

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BELOIT-Three area social studies teachers who attended a workshop at Harvard Business School during the summer of 2019 will give a presentation on the history behind the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) on Saturday. The presentation will be at 10 a.m. at the Beloit Public Library, or it can be viewed online through Go To Meeting.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why parenting is a crucial factor in mental health

# data[].attributes.subject
Why parenting is a crucial factor in mental health

# data[].attributes.body
Whether the parents are absent or not when a kid needs them most can cause a big change in the kids mind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I once read that the teenage years can be likened to the toddler years. Both stages of life are a time of significant developmental change. Toddlers and teens alike experience significant body and mind development that can have them behaving in ways you have never seen. Just as they are figuring out who they are, we, as parents, struggle to understand the child we once thought we knew inside out.

But the thing is, that is what they need from us most of all; to understand. The way we interact with our young children, the words we use, the intonation in our voice and even our body language can have a huge impact on whether they will feel comfortable talking to us about the big issues they will inevitably face as teens. If we are not empathetic and understanding of the 'little things' they face in their early years (which are actually big things to them) then chances are they will have a hard time opening up about the big things when they grow older.

Imagine if your son came home from school after spending the day coping with peers calling him names and throwing his back pack on the toilet block roof. Imagine then if he were to say nothing to you about it but instead went straight to his room. Would you want to have the opportunity to talk to him about it? How about if your daughter was struggling with her peers pressuring her to take drugs, would you want to know? If your daughter fell pregnant and was frightened about the huge choices she would soon be making, would you want her to be able to come to you for help? If she chose to abort the child, I know you'd want to know about that!

Responding to these questions is confronting and uncomfortable.

We would all like to pray and hope that our children will never find themselves in these situations but we would be naive to think that our children are completely immune from the perils of adolescence.

I've been a secondary school teacher for more than a decade now. I have taught in schools on both sides of the world and at both ends of the economic spectrum. In my time as a health and physical education teacher I have been privileged to teach, mentor and guide students through their teen years in many differing ways and in a number of roles.

Of course, teaching these students was my primary role and I really enjoyed that aspect of my job, but what if I told you that each of the students in the scenarios above chose not to talk to their parents? What if I told you that in each of the cases, the only person they felt they could talk to was me - their teacher?

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not complaining about the fact that I can be a confidante for these students during some pretty harrowing years, in fact, I feel touched and grateful that they were able to find the confidence to open up at all. But, now that I am a parent and have had a chance to reflect upon these scenarios with a different perspective, I realise that the trials of the teenage years are life-shaping to many. I know that if these were my children in the future, I would want them to feel they could come to me when times got tough.

I have since lost count of the number of students that, burdened with what must have felt like the weight of the world, broke down during a conversation after class and confided in me. From friendship issues to relationship concerns, pregnancy scares and drug experiences, these students spoke of their fears, their regrets and their inability to find their way past it.

There were, of course, times where I was legally obliged to report their stories to my superiors and from there the children had access to the professional support they needed. But many times these children simply needed a shoulder cry on; someone to hear them and to understand.

So, why don't teenagers talk to their parents?

In every case, I queried, "Is there someone you can talk to about this at home?" and almost always the answer was a resounding, "No!" With rationales like, "They just wouldn't understand" or "They would be so disappointed in me!" coming flooding out with the tears that fell uncontrollably, it often seemed that this realisation itself was to them sometimes more painful than the life event they were dealing with.

So where did their relationship break down? When did it get to the point that these children no longer felt comfortable talking to their parents about their deepest fears, their hurts and their pain? When did their problems get so big that they felt the only person they could trust to talk to about them was their school teacher?

Well, I can tell you honestly that in most cases it was not because these parents were uncaring, unloving or bad parents. In most cases it was quite the opposite. These were in fact, strong, capable, got-it-together parents who would do anything for their children and raised them to have good morals and high values. They were adoring and hard-working and would consider themselves great role-models for their children.

I can also say categorically that these children were not 'broken' or disconnected children. Many of them were high achievers, diligent, popular and outwardly happy. They cared about their life and had goals and aspirations. They also had a lot of love for their parents.

The problem it seemed, stemmed from their childhood, where somewhere along the way they had come to the conclusion that their parent's love and approval was conditional of good behaviour and achievement.

You see, in a well-intended, concerted effort to ensure their children are raised to be upstanding members of society, many parents use punitive, disconnecting discipline techniques. Methods such as time-outs, removal of privileges, shaming and spanking are among the most common of these methods. They, coupled with achievement-based rewards and praise, unwittingly send the message that with achievement comes love and with misbehaviour comes reprehension. This can effectively close the doors for a trusting, honest and communicative relationship between parent and child in the future.

My time spent with thousands of teenagers over the past decade has had a significant impact on the parenting pathway I have taken. My children are still some way off hitting their teen years, but I am confident that the way I parent them now will have a significant bearing on how comfortable they will feel communicating to me during those vulnerable teenage years.

As my children grow I want them to know that no matter what happens; no matter what trouble they find themselves in, they can always come to me. I want them to know that I will support them, guide them and love them no matter what.

I know that if you have read this far, this is probably something you would want for your children also.

So, what do we need to do to foster an open relationship with our children?

To create that open, trusting relationship we need to be mindful of the way we parent them now. It is now that we are laying the foundations for our relationship in the years to come.

We need to admire and respect them for who they are - warts and all! With unconditional love, support and understanding, no matter how testing the behaviour, we must send our children the clear message that not only will we always accept them for who they are, we will always support and help them with kindness and understanding when they are having a hard time. They need to know that they can always be confident and proud of who they are no matter the short-comings they may be attributed and we can relay this to them in our interactions with them.

How can we demonstrate acceptance and understanding on a daily basis?

1. Choose Discipline Over Punishment

It is vital to grow connection with our children by using discipline rather than punish ment. Teaching through guidance rather than by fear encourages children to remain open about their mistakes rather than hiding them away.

Janet Lansbury, a parenting teacher and RIE (respectful parenting) associate taught me that when our children are having a hard time and displaying testing toddler behaviours, this is our opportunity to show them we are open for them to communicate to us their pain. We can show them understanding by reaching out to them during these times and acknowledging their frustrations. We can say things like, "It seems you are having a hard time playing with your sister, I will sit here with you so I can help you." And then do it. Keep them both safe and show compassion and understanding to both siblings as they both have their own demons to deal with.

If we punish them by taking away their favourite toy or sending them to their room, or showing them the same aggression they might be displaying towards their sibling, not only do we send them the message that we don't want to try to understand them but we also close the door on an opportunity to communicate and connect.

Why Timeouts Fail and What to do Instead

2. Acknowledge Physical and Emotional Hurt

When they fall and bump their knee and begin to whine or cry, we can let them know we empathise with their pain. It may just be a small scrape but we mustn't try to stop their tears by telling them they are alright if they are clearly upset. By finding something to distract them with or dismissing their pain rather than acknowledging their discomfort and offering them some TLC, we are telling them, we don't want to hear about their hurts. We only want them to be happy.

Similarly, when a child is feeling emotional about a particular circumstance that may seem trivial to us as adults, acknowledge and validate their feelings. It IS a big deal to them so it is important we show them that we understand and empathise. Parenting is easy when our children are happy, it is when they are sad, angry or frustrated that we can truly let them know we understand and accept ALL sides of them and that our love is unconditional.

So, how do we avoid creating an approval-based relationship?

Whilst keeping lines of communication wide open from birth is vital in fostering a trusting relationship with children, a relationship based upon the need for approval can also cause a teen to withdraw and withhold from us for fear of retribution.

As children grow and develop it can be tempting to push them beyond their capabilities in an effort to help them achieve milestones and learn new skills. When a child begins to pull themselves up on couches, for example, it might prompt us to take their hand and show them they can walk across the room. This achievement is celebrated by enthusiastic parents who might clap their hands and coo "Good boy!" to their child.

The message this sends the child is that just pulling themselves up on the couch is not good enough. It plants a seed of self-doubt as they question the worthiness of their actual capabilities. They get drawn towards the prospect of more attention and praise if only they could just take those extra few steps.

Accepting that a child's skills, abilities, behaviours, emotions etc on any given day are perfect for that child at that time takes a significant change in ideals and perceptions but what it does do is create an environment for our children to become contentedly and innately driven to learn, achieve, grow and develop along a natural pathway. A child who feels their worth is measured by results, achievements and good behaviour will soon need to see, hear and feel parental approval to gain confidence and continue moving forward.

Rebuilding a Child's Confidence

I have seen first-hand the impact on teenagers who have had these subtle messages unwittingly reinforced to them by their well-meaning parents over the course of their childhood. These children become fearful of disappointing their parents and worried that confiding in them will be met with judgement and disapproval.

During the adolescent years, teen's bodies are undergoing huge changes fuelled by hormones. At the same time they experience a developmental need to assert independence and additionally, possess underdeveloped brain matter which encourages them towards more risk-taking activities. In short, a significant number of teenagers will experiment, test and become more emotional during adolescence, leaving them vulnerable to the sorts of situations I mentioned earlier in the article.

Therefore, (just as in their toddlerhood) teens need love and understanding more than ever, If they don't feel confident they can get this as home, many will seek out a trusted source such as their teacher to unload their burdens.

Whilst having our children open up to an alternative confidante would not be the end of the world, wouldn't we rather they felt they could come to us should they be concerned, worried or looking for guidance? I know I would want to be there to help my daughters should they need it.

I feel strongly that over the next decade, as our children navigate through their childhood, finding their feet and developing a stronger understanding of who they are, what they stand for, their strengths and their limitations, our role as their parents must be to walk alongside them, showing them unconditional love and understanding. This, I believe, will give them the confidence they need to be able to confide in us if, or when, their lives get tough.

When they hurt, we will empathise. When they scream, we will listen. When they make mistakes, we will support them. When they reject us, we will understand and love them. When they fall down, we will let them know they are still loved as they pick themselves back up again and move on. This must be our pledge to our children.
I still occasionally see the student of mine who aborted her child. She was legally able to make this decision for herself and went through with it with no family support. She went on to have a beautiful family a little later with her partner and is a terrific mother. She says her Mum and Dad still have no idea about her first pregnancy and she doubts she will ever tell them.
My parenting is inspired by Magda Gerber's RIE approach which I learned of through Janet Lansbury's work. If you are interested in learning more you can find some good information here or I highly recommend these books (affiliate links)

Dear Parent: Caring for Infants With Respect (2nd Edition) ~ Magda Gerber

Your Self-Confident Baby: How to Encourage Your Child's Natural Abilities - From the Very Start
~ Magda Gerber

Elevating Child Care: A Guide to Respectful Parenting ~ Janet Lansbury

No Bad Kids: Toddler Discipline Without Shame ~ Janet Lansbury

More recommended reading:

Taking the Brunt of a Child's Anger and Still Finding Connection ~ Kate Russell (Peaceful Parents, Confident Kids)

Creating Bonds: Accepting a Child's Emotions ~ Kate Russell (Peaceful Parents, Confident Kids)

Talking to Toddlers: 4 Secrets That Bring you Closer ~ Janet Lansbury (Janet Lansbury-Elevating Childcare)

Foolproof Strategies for Getting Kids to Talk ~ Laura Markham (Aha Parenting)

How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk ~ Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish (Affiliate Link)

Photo Credit: Copyright: Ed Yourdon (Flickr) (Image adjusted - lighting and text added)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Teenagers Don't Talk to Their Parents and What you can do About it Now With Your Toddler

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I once read that the teenage years can be likened to the toddler years. Both stages of life are a time of significant developmental change. Toddlers and teens alike experience significant body and mind development that can have them behaving in ways you have never seen.

# data[].attributes.body
This article brings up how ge has benefited malnourishment problems. Basically switching up the whole food chain, this breakthrough could completely flip the table.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How genetic modification of microbes that help make foods can contribute to a more stable (and delicious) food chain - SynBioBeta

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetic modification (GM) has been an exciting tool in food production for decades. While it sometimes gets a bad rap, the reality is that it has significantly helped feed and nourish the fast-growing global population, and will continue to support its growth, which is expected to top 9.6 billion in the next 30 years.

# data[].attributes.body
When I usually write in these they're about whether or not genetic engineering is  more beneficial or hurtful to society. But today, this article begs to ask the questions, what effect does society have upon genetic engineering?  And to be short, I think that question is up in the air. Society as a whole isn't one being, and if the good parts of it get their hand's on genetic engineering, then great, maybe we'll have breakthroughs
. But what we don't want is bad part getting their hands on it, and with kits being super cheap, it's almost bound to become a talking point of national security such as gun rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New advances in genetic engineering and their application for environmental conservation and public health are further testing our democracy's capacity for good decision-making. With minimal public input, the Environmental Protection Agency recently approved the release of genetically modified mosquitoes in Florida and Texas. An application for the planting of GM American Chestnut trees, engineered to reproduce and spread in the wild, is currently under review by the US Department of Agriculture. And even more complex and powerful genetic technologies intended for environmental release are in the research pipeline.

Gene drives may be the most impactful and controversial of these technologies. Gene drives are genetically engineered plants and animals designed to force expression of a desired genetic trait in a wild population. When released into the environment, just a few gene-drive organisms can override natural selection to spread a genetic modification through a species and potentially change it forever. The oceanic release of gene-drive corals, for example, could spread heat resiliency to protect reefs from rising sea temperatures. Release of gene-drive mosquitoes that spread infertility could eliminate the transmission of mosquito-borne diseases in the United States, such as the Zika virus and dengue fever; gene drives to suppress malaria have already been developed in labs.

But these potential benefits could easily be overshadowed by unintended consequences. Without thoughtful oversight, gene drives could disrupt ecosystems, cause food webs to collapse, increase disease virulence, and further disenfranchise cultures and communities.

US regulatory agencies charged with overseeing gene drives definea good decision as one that is safe (the technology isn't likely to harm human and environmental health) and effective (the technology does what it's designed to do). In addition to misgivings about who gets to decide what constitutes safety and efficacy, we have concerns about this narrow definition of a good decision. Aside from public comment periods, local community input is not adequately sought out and issues of social justice and equity are largely ignored. This is unacceptable for a technology with the capacity to forever change our shared environments.

Here are four ways decision-making about gene drives could be improved:

▪ Diverse experts must be empowered. Gene drives and their interactions in the environment are complex. Rigorous scientific data are needed to inform decisions, as are experts with a deep understanding of the human and nonhuman communities where release would occur. In addition to geneticists, vector biologists, and ecologists, a parent whose child has been developmentally impacted by Zika is an expert. Indigenous peoples with generations of experience of sustainably fishing their local waters and reef systems are experts. The best solutions will be those developed in collaboration with communities facing the challenge meant to be solved. To ensure everyone's safety, their inputs must be included and valued.

▪ Consent isn't enough. Gaining consent from communities that could be impacted by a gene-drive release will be crucial, but consent should be the bare minimum for a good decision. Today's consent mechanisms, such as the Common Rule and Institutional Review Boards, are born out of histories of harm and misconduct (e.g., Tuskegee, Willowbrook, the San Antonio Contraceptive Study). But these important safeguards emphasize individual bodies and lack procedures that protect the rights and welfare of communities, the environment, and the interdependent relations among them.

Gene-drive decisions must go beyond narrow goals of obtaining consent and instead seek to build trust and reciprocal relations among technologists, regulatory agents, and affected communities. This means going beyond public comment periods to treating communities as partners and seeking input in decision-making.

▪ Reckon with history or it will be repeated. Centuries of racist and colonial practices have not only contributed to today's environmental and public health crises - such as impacts of deforestation on zoonotic disease transmission, pollution-induced degradation of marine ecosystems in low-lying atolls, or in East Boston, a designated Environmental Justice Population, where Logan Airport already controls half of the land and the electric company Eversource now seeks to site a new substation - they have also all but ensured that those least responsible for these issues will feel their impacts the most. Relationships cannot be built without an understanding of the historic and ongoing injustices faced by members of impacted communities. This calls for an open and critical assessment of our complicity in racist and colonial structures by virtue of the institutions we work in and the lands we live on.

For example, most Americans don't know about the unsavory links between the founding fathers of environmental conservation and the eugenics movement. Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the nation's first National Conservation Commission, for example, also served as a delegate to the first and second International Eugenics Congress. Efforts in the early parts of the 20th century to keep the American wilderness "pristine" were interwoven with pseudoscientific ideas of genetic purity, white supremacy, and racial segregation - this way of valuing nature still influences who can access American wild spaces and natural places today.

▪ Put your money where your mouth is. Numerous governmental agencies, technology developers, academics, and NGOs have called for more community involvement in gene drive decisions. But without meaningful investments, this can't happen because our institutions don't have the infrastructure or capacity to sustain open and inclusive decision-making. As millions of dollars are being invested in technology development, equal resources are needed to support collective oversight. Those investments are needed immediately.

In calling for collective oversight and community empowerment, we fully expect our recommendations to be labeled as too idealistic by those firmly rooted in the status quo. Good. Because if ever there were a time to imagine a more ideal, democratic future, it's now. Gene drives may or may not be part of this future, but better decision-making processes absolutely must be.

Natalie Kofler is founder of Editing Nature and an adviser and curriculum lead for the Scientific Citizenship Initiative at Harvard Medical School. Riley Taitingfong is a PhD candidate in the Department of Communication and member of the Indigenous Futures Lab at the University of California, San Diego.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advances in genetic engineering test democracy's capacity for good decision-making - The Boston Globe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New advances in genetic engineering and their application for environmental conservation and public health are further testing our democracy's capacity for good decision-making. With minimal public input, the Environmental Protection Agency recently approved the release of genetically modified mosquitoes in Florida and Texas.

# data[].attributes.body
But not only women have come out about their assault stories some men have also been able to gain the confidence to talk about what they had gone. It's good to remember that these experiences doesn't only happen to women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Oscar-winning actor recently wrote a memoir named Greenlights that detailed various personal events from his life. One of the most shocking sections in the book was also one of the shortest when McConaughey mentioned being blackmailed into having sex at the age of 15 and getting molested by a man while knocked out unconscious in the back of a van when he was 18. The two incidents are not elaborated on further in the book, and during a recent interview, McConaughey explained why.

"Ultimately, there's nothing that I feel is constructive about the details. I feel like those details, unless I had a really good constructive way that I saw it that could be relatable to other people, I felt like those details could have just been grabbed and reported for voyeurism. They could've been the thing that every single show was going to go 'Read about the details of when Matthew was molested,' or 'Read about when he got blackmailed,' and that's the wrong headline. Because I also write in the book I've never felt like a victim...yes was I victimized in those two situations? Sure. But that doesn't mean that I've carried on through my life the feeling of 'oh I was victimized,' or 'oh I was a victim,' or that those two unfortunate events have turned me into the man that I am or are even an excuse."

RELATED: Johnny Depp Loses Libel Case Against U.K. Tabloid

The issue of sexual assault is one that has been thrown into sharper focus in Hollywood in recent years, with the MeToo movement. While the movement focussed mainly on women, a few men have also come forward with their own stories of suffering from sexual assault like actor Terry Crews.

For his part, McConaughey believes that the fact that he was old enough to understand the seriousness of the crime that was committed against him allowed him to come to terms with the two incidents in a relatively healthy manner.

"Those two events happened to me at 15 and 18. If they would've happened to me younger...maybe I would've been more confused. But when they happened to me, it was very clear to me, that they were wrong, that they were not ideal, that they were not how it's supposed to be. So I think having that clarity means that it's probably why it didn't stick with me and confuse me later on or left me having a non-realistic view of the way the world is supposed to work."

While coming to terms with the reality of having suffered an assault is an important step, healing from the effects of the assault, both mental and physical, and moving on is the next crucial step in the process. It seems McConaughey was able to reach that step on his own, and thus felt comfortable putting the incidents behind him.

On the work front, the Oscar-winner has been taking a break from movies in recent times, explaining that he "looked at a couple of scripts, but [there is] nothing that is moving me out of my chair to go, 'I'm going to quit doing this and go make a movie."

Topics: Sexual Misconduct

Writer with a keen interest in technology and pop culture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Matthew McConaughey Explains Why He Didn't Detail Sexual Assault Experiences in New Book

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oscar-winning actor recently wrote a memoir named Greenlights that detailed various personal events from his life. One of the most shocking sections in the book was also one of the shortest when McConaughey mentioned being blackmailed into having sex at the age of 15 and getting molested by a man while knocked out unconscious in the back of a van when he was 18.

# data[].attributes.body
Because of Me Too movement more and more women have had the courage stand up and make a statement including the allegation made against one of Iran's most famous artist. More than 850 sign petition for Tirgan to cut ties with Aydin Aghdashloo after allegations of sexual assault.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Accusations of sexual assault against one of Iran's most celebrated visual artists are making waves in Toronto's Iranian community - with many saying they represent a critical moment not only in the burgeoning #MeToo movement inside Iran, but also an opportunity for community leaders abroad to take a stand against a culture of impunity they say has too long shielded perpetrators at all levels of power.

Last month, The New York Times released a report detailing multiple allegations of sexual harassment, assault and misconduct against Aydin Aghdashloo, 80, a prominent Iranian contemporary painter.

The report cites interviews with some 13 women, including former students whose accusations the paper says date back three decades. Nineteen of the 45 people interviewed, the story says, described him as the "Harvey Weinstein of Iran."

The allegations remain unproven and have not been tested in court.

In an email to CBC News, Aghdashloo's lawyer said the artist could not provide comment at this time, but "we will be further rebutting the many inaccuracies in the NYT's article in the near future."

Still, news of the allegations is prompting many in Toronto's Iranian community to speak out, calling for organizers of what's known as the world's largest celebration of Iranian art and culture to cut ties with Aghdashloo.

A chance to show 'what kind of organization it is'

Aghdashloo has been featured repeatedly over the years at the Tirgan Festival, held in Toronto every two years, showcasing hundreds of artists, performances and speakers.

"Tirgan has a very positive track record in the community," Toronto-based entrepreneur Mahshid Yassaei, 34, told CBC News.

"This is a turning point for Tirgan to really tell the story of what kind of organization it is. Is it an organization that's built for the community and by the community, or is it an organization that's turning into a corporation that's just thinking about profit?"

Yassaei is one of some 850 people who have signed a petition launched by a group of Iranian artists, activists, academics and members of the community calling on the festival's organizers to "stop giving predators a platform."

In particular, the petition takes aim at festival CEO Mehrdad Ariannejad, who earlier this year partnered with former CBC star radio host Jian Ghomeshi to create Roqe Media, where the two serve as directors.

Ghomeshi was acquitted of sexual assault and choking after a high-profile trial in 2016. The venture was first reported on by Canadian newsite and podcast network Canadaland earlier this year.

'I don't believe in cancel culture'

In a written statement to CBC News Ariannejad said: "The decision to start Roqe with Jian Ghomeshi was not one that I made lightly," adding the company has never had ties to Tirgan.

"Jian might have made mistakes but I believe that people should be given a second chance. I don't believe in cancel culture," Ariannejad said in part.

As for his personal values, Ariannejad said he has dedicated "a considerable portion" of his volunteer activities to women's rights and gender equality, and has always "strongly condemned acts of sexual violence and harassment and will continue to work hard for these values."

The Tirgan Festival said it "strongly condemns all acts of sexual misconduct" and has a "zero-tolerance policy" on harassment and discrimination.

"We too are concerned by the news surrounding Iran's Me Too movement and will be closely monitoring the developments," the organization said in a statement to CBC News. The festival said it has always been its policy "to stay away from contentious matters" so as to "foster a safe and welcoming environment for our visitors."

Asked specifically if it would cease its collaborations with Aghdashloo, the organization would not say.

"We will continue to uphold this policy and remain committed to never acting as a forum for those who are guilty of sexual misconduct," it said.

'We've never seen the momentum that we're seeing today'

Though the allegations against him remain unproven, some say if Tirgan continues to give Aghdashloo a platform, it will erode their confidence in the festival.

"I will have second thoughts of supporting the festival, which is quite honestly the only [such] festival happening outside of Iran," Samira Banihashemi told CBC News.

She's not alone.

These assaults are not necessarily about sex, but about exerting power. - Samira Banihashemi

"Myself and part of the community were expecting Tirgan and community leaders to express their sense of empathy with the victims... and [as long as] the cases are open, they would suspend their work with Aghdashloo," said Mahmoud Azimaee, a Toronto-based Iranian activist.

For Banihashemi, who previously worked in production at the Tirgan Festival, news of the allegations against Aghdashloo go beyond the festival itself, however.

"We've never seen the momentum that we're seeing today," the 35-year-old said.

"This is starting a very important conversation about the idea of consent and what it means to say no, and also the fact that the perpetrators... can very well be prominent and respected members of the society," Banihashemi added.

"These assaults are not necessarily about sex, but about exerting power."

Sexual harassment an 'everyday event' for many

Artist and art educator Azadeh Pirazimian, 40, grew up in Iran, where she says sexual harassment was a part of daily life - only she didn't have the vocabulary to call it out.

"Honestly, it was an everyday event for me," she said, describing a regular pattern of unwanted remarks, being touched without consent and being told she was somehow responsible for the advances of men, often strangers.

"Before coming to Canada and learning so many things about this topic... I just knew the 'rape' word," said Pirazimian. In Iran, she said, "there are no categories like sexual assault, sexual harassment and sexual violence."

And while the #MeToo movement in Iran has gathered steam over the past few months, Ontario Tech University professor Serena Sohrab says she hopes more attention will be paid to the experiences of a group she referes to as "second-hand victims" - women who have made the difficult choice not to engage in the workforce in Iran to avoid the reality of daily sexual harassment.

"I'm a hard-headed feminist, and as a woman who has lived in a patriarchal society ... there is nothing that I want more than equality for women," Sohrab told CBC News.

But regarding the case of Aghdashloo, she urges caution, saying that while the allegations against him are serious, it's important not to jump to conclusions as long as the case remains open.

Defining 'how the next generation' sees sexual harassment

"If we close our eyes to those standards for people that are in power and people that we want to be connected to ... I think we're definitely encouraging behaviour that we don't want to see in the world," she told CBC News.

And as more women in Iran come forward with their own experiences of sexual violence, she hopes their stories will also send another message: that this should not be normal.

"I want the next generation to be really shocked, really surprised to hear that these behaviours still exist," she said.

"And I think our reaction to these behaviours today is going to define how the next generation is going to live their lives."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Iran's #MeToo movement makes waves in Toronto as calls mount for festival to cut ties with celebrated artist | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Accusations of sexual assault against one of Iran's most celebrated visual artists are making waves in Toronto's Iranian community - with many saying they represent a critical moment not only in the burgeoning #MeToo movement inside Iran, but also for community leaders abroad to take a stand against a culture of impunity they say has too long shielded perpetrators at all levels of power.

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains how abortion has little effect on the mother.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contrary to popular belief, women who have abortions may experience little orno long-term psychological trauma. In a study meant to examine how such factors as race and ethnicity influence the psychological after-effects of abortions, psychologists Nancy Felipe Russo Ph.D.. of Arizona State University, and Amy Dabul, Ph.D., of Phoenix College, found that the best clue to a woman's mental well-being after an abortion is her state of mind before the pregnancy--in particular her level of self-esteem. In other words, those who found the procedure traumatic were generally troubled long before they showed up at an abortion clinic. In fact, Dabul and Russo contend that much of the stress experienced by women who get abortions may stem not from the procedure itself but from the simple fact that the pregnancy is unwanted.

In addition, the researchers found that women's religious affiliation had no effect on whether they had abortions; devout Catholics were just as likely to abort as women belonging to religions more tolerant of the procedure. Nor did religion affect women's long-term well-being after abortion, once education level, income, and initial self-esteem were taken into account.

Russo and Dabul offer one caveat to their findings: They conducted their research be. fore abortion clinic harassment had fully bloomed. No one is sure how the added stress of Operation Rescue activism and recent attacks on clinics and doctors will affect women who choose to abort.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Contrary to popular belief, women who have abortions may experience little orno long-term psychological trauma. In a study meant to examine how such factors as race and ethnicity influence the psychological after-effects of abortions, psychologists Nancy Felipe Russo Ph.D..

# data[].attributes.body
Before people can even start outlawing abortion, there are other issues that need to be fixed first. The foster care system plays a huge part in the lives of many kids in America, but it's not always a good part. While many kids do end up getting adopted, so many of them don't. There are currently 400,000 children in foster care, that still need homes. Of this 400,000 so many of them get placed in neglectful or abusive homes. So, before we can outlaw abortion and put more kids there, we need to fix what we have now and make it better for the kids currently there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image: Joanne Rathe/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

When Tenaja Jordan came out to her parents at 17 years old, they kicked her out of their home. As a teenager, she was still considered a child in the eyes of the state, and was immediately placed into New York City's child welfare system.

Following the trauma of the situation, one question remained on Jordan's mind: Where was she going to live?

Jordan made her needs clear to child welfare workers: She didn't want to live on Staten Island or with a homophobic guardian. But that's exactly where she ended up.

"Her first words to me were, 'Did any of those lesbians at the children's center hit on you?'" Jordan tells Mashable about her guardian. " ACS put me exactly where I didn't want to be."

Advocates say there's a lot wrong with a system that desperately needs to get it right.

Jordan, now an adult who has worked in the foster care system herself, isn't unique in her struggle to navigate child welfare. Foster care has long been criticized for failing to meet the needs of children, from allowing kids to age out of the system without safety nets in place, to struggling to adequately support youth and families.

Advocates like Jordan say there's a lot wrong with a system that desperately needs to get it right.

According to the latest statistics available, as of September 2014, more than 415,000 children and teens were in the foster care system at any given time. These young people live in temporary housing provided by the state, are cared for by relatives or unrelated foster parents, or are placed in other residential facilities like group homes. And they' re constantly frustrated with a system that feels unmanageable.

But getting to the root of frustration with child welfare systems isn't easy. Advocates say there are a lot of complicated and intertwining factors that make foster care ultimately unsuccessful for many who enter the system.

Consider this a critical starting point to reframe how we think of child welfare. Here are six problems advocates say hinder foster care in the U.S., and what you can do to make a change.

1. Group homes are too often a go-to.

More than 56,000 children in child welfare systems are living in group settings - and advocates say that number is far too high. Many argue children have more success when placed in family settings from the start, and that defaulting to group settings is a troubling practice.

"We believe that all kids who have to be removed from their families should be placed with other families."

"We believe all kids who have to be removed from their families should be placed with other families," Tracey Feild, director of the Child Welfare Strategy Group at the Annie E. Casey Foundation, tells Mashable . "That's the most important criterion for placement - or it should be."

Aside lacking in adequate support for children in care, group homes also make little financial sense. Group settings are about seven to 10 times more expensive per child than placement with a family.

But, Feild admits, there's one major obstacle when it comes to getting children out of group care: There are rarely enough foster families to achieve that goal.

Denise Goodman, a child welfare professional and consultant with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, adds that there's often a dependency on group homes for teenagers in particular, because "not enough people want to step up for teens."

What you can do to help: Become a foster parent, if the new role fits your life and your family.

"What we want is to stabilize youth in one family - and have that family understand what they are going through, and address and meet their needs," Feild says.

To learn more about the process to become a foster parent, state-by-state, visit here.

2. Teens age out of the system without proper support.

When children, especially teens, are placed into group homes, they're denied the ability to connect with a permanent, adoptive family. Without those connections, they're likely to age out of the system without a supportive network in place.

"At a certain point, a decision is made that a child is old enough that we can let them age out," Feild says. "Now, we are realizing that that's a mistake."

And the realities of aging out of the system are devastating for youth. One in five young people who age out of the system will become homeless. One in four will be involved in the justice system within two years of leaving foster care. And it's estimated that more than 40% of youth who age out won't complete high school.

"The best independent living, transitional support teens in foster care can have is a family."

"The best independent living, transitional support teens in foster care can have is a family," Goodman says. "There wasn't a whole bunch of us who were truly ready to be 100% on our own at 18."

Goodman adds that many jurisdictions have recently extended foster care beyond age 18 to age 21, because states are starting to understand that young adults are in need of much more support from caregivers and case workers.

"Even kids who have grown up with families and have gone to college - very few can be independent at 21," Feild says. "And we expect these kids to go off and succeed on their own? It's unlikely and unfair to think that's going to happen."

What you can do to help: Become a mentor for foster youth in your community - and be a vocal advocate for stronger transitional measures for young adults aging out.

"You need a connection to an adult that is going to be there for you," Jordan says. "Young adults need that kind of mentorship and support."

To become a mentor, reach out to agencies in your state or local families in your community that could use support. To learn more about the challenges facing young adults aging out of the system, read first-person accounts of the crisis here.

3. Foster parents need more support to achieve success.

Guardians need more support, too, which Feild says is essential for foster parents to work through any difficulties they may experience.

"An entire community needs to have a positive attitude toward people who do this difficult ... work of becoming foster parents."

"They are often taking kids who have experienced trauma in their early years," she says. "They have to be trained about what's going on in a child's life, and how to best address those concerns."

Though advocates say family placement is ideal over group homes, children and teens in the system - especially those who are LGBTQ - are often reluctant to leave congregate care because many foster care families can't meet their needs the way group care workers can.

With almost half of all children in the child welfare system living in foster homes with non-relatives, Feild says early support while families are forming relationships is especially key to curbing disruptions in placement. And because it's common for foster kids to hop from placement to placement, addressing that trend through child parental support is crucial. and

What you can do to help: Support foster families in your community in big and small ways - tutor, babysit or simply ask how you can make their lives a little easier. Goodman says there needs to be an "all hands on deck" mentality to support foster families, especially since not every family can be a foster family.

"An entire community needs to have a positive attitude toward people who do this difficult, challenging but ultimately rewarding work of becoming foster parents," she says.

Organizations like the National Foster Parent Association recruit, train and support foster parents in a more structured manner. You can donate to its efforts here.

4. There isn't enough focus on reunification.

We often talk about adoption or aging out as the only two options after foster care, but reunification with a parent is an option often overlooked. It's actually common, with about half of all youth who leave foster care becoming reunited with their parents.

"We need to be saying, 'Lend a helping hand to children and their families by becoming a foster parent.'"

But, advocates say, the system as a whole often ignores reunification as a viable option when thinking about a young person's future. Feild says that's a major misstep, especially because children who are removed from their families don't necessarily want to be.

For these youth, Goodman adds, talking about foster care with reunification in mind is essential.

"We aren't 'giving this child the gift of a family'; this child has a family," Goodman says. "Family needs to be part of the conversation. We need to be saying, 'Lend a helping hand to children and their families by becoming a foster parent.'"

What you can do to help: Reframe how you talk and think about foster care. Don't assume parents who have children taken away are forever unable to provide for those children.

Abuse or neglect aren't always the issues at hand. The realities of mass incarceration for minor convictions - especially for black families - may place a child out of parental care, or a family struggling financially may temporarily lose the ability to take care of their children.

There are many reasons for lapses in the ability to care for a child that can be solved, allowing families to move forward. Let reunification become one of the end goals you talk about when speaking about foster care, not just adoption or aging out.

5. Children's needs often go unheard.

For many children in the foster care system, their frustrations stem from one main source: They feel their voices go unheard.

"I do think that sometimes we aren't very good at listening to kids or engaging with kids," Goodman says. "Some people just don't value the youth voice - and I think we should."

"Some people just don't value the youth voice - and I think we should."

Sometimes, that voice can be angry or frustrated, leading adults to cut off communication and leave a child's needs unmet, simply because they don't like how they're being articulated. But both Goodman and Feild agree that anger, especially when dealing with a complex foster care system and past trauma, is understandable.

"You've got kids who have had terrible things happen to them - so bad that they've had to be removed from their families," Feild says. "They have a lot going on and a lot to deal with, along with growing up and becoming independent."

What you can do to help: Be someone who listens to children and teens in foster care - and encourage others to do the same. An adult advocating for an unheard child acts as an amplifier for that child's needs.

6. The system is filled with too many rules, regulations, and players.

Some children may feel frustrated with the foster care system because they're constantly under surveillance. There are often a lot of players in the lives of foster children: guardians, advocates, social workers, courts and more.

"You have to go through 12 layers of people to find the right person to talk to about something," Feild says. "You are bound by the rules of the system - and they are not the normal rules a parent would have for a child."

"You are bound by the rules of the system - and they are not the normal rules a parent would have for a child."

Feild says seemingly normal tasks for foster children and teens, like getting a driver's license or playing on a sports team, require extensive approval and paperwork. As a result, it's easy for children to feel like their lives are impossible to navigate.

"That's a lot of people controlling your life and making decisions for you," she says. "At least in a biological or adoptive family, you can have a dialogue about that."

And for young people in foster care to assert themselves against these rules can be especially tricky. It often involves a lot of risk.

"[In the foster care system], there's no room for error. If I'm a teenager and I make a stupid mistake, my foster parents may say to an agency, 'Hey, move this kid,'" Feild says.

What you can do to help: Become a court-appointed special advocate for foster youth, if the new role fits your life. A special advocate in the courts ensures foster youth are getting all their legal needs met by getting to know those children and their situations, and then vocalizing their opinions of a positive and sensitive care plan in the courts.

To learn more about how to become a volunteer, visit here.
To learn more about youth rights within the system, start with this breakdown.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 problems with the foster care system -- and what you can do to help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Tenaja Jordan came out to her parents at 17 years old, they kicked her out of their home. As a teenager, she was still considered a child in the eyes of the state, and was immediately placed into New York City's child welfare system.

# data[].attributes.headline
The New EARN IT Act Still Threatens Encryption and Child Exploitation Prosecutions

# data[].attributes.subject
The New EARN IT Act Still Threatens Encryption and Child Exploitation Prosecutions

# data[].attributes.body
The EARN IT Act would cause companies to end there end-to-end encryption which is what keeps our data safe when it is being sent throughout "the cloud". It would also cause loopholes that could make is harder to prosecute predators even with solid evidence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This blog post is the second part of a two part series analyzing the latest version of the EARN IT Act that passed out the Senate Judiciary Committee. The first post introduced the changes made to the structure of the bill and discussed how those changes fail to alleviate the free expression concerns that the bill poses. This blog focuses on how it continues to threaten strong encryption and potentially violate the Fourth Amendment. Encryption Continues to Be a Live Issue
A new version of the widely panned S. 3398, Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2020 (EARN IT), recently passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. EARN IT seeks to deal with the scourge of online child exploitation by coercing service providers to more aggressively police such content on their platforms. It's an important issue to address, but the bill's approach is problematic. While we agree that more should be done about online child exploitation, we(1) have(2) voiced(3) strong(4) opposition to the EARN IT Act because of the significant risks the bill poses to free expression online, to the ability for providers to offer and for consumers to use end to end encrypted services, and the risks the bill poses to prosecutions of those who harm children online. We have not(1) been(2) alone(3) in(4) our opposition.

The day before the committee debate, the authors of the EARN IT Act introduced an amendment that significantly changed the bill, but failed(1) to(2) resolve(3) its fundamental flaws(4). Senator Leahy (D-VT) also introduced and secured an amendment that seeks to prevent EARN IT from precluding a provider from offering encrypted services. With little time for members to consider the changes made to the bill, and on the day before a holiday, the amended version of the bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and now awaits consideration by the whole of the Senate (potentially through unanimous consent, which Senator Wyden [D-Or] has pledged to block, an act we applaud). Despite the changes made, we are still staunchly opposed to the bill. It would still significantly burden the free expression rights of users of interactive computer services- particularly of marginalized communities; it still jeopardizes the ability of service providers to provide encrypted services; and creates a new set of Fourth Amendment problems. We discuss the latter two issues in greater detail below.

In short, encryption remains under threat in EARN IT because in order for providers to identify and take down CSAM on their services, the bill requires either a third party to report such content, or the ability of the provider to view each piece of content passing through their service. This expanded liability for CSAM essentially deters a provider from risking offering strong end-to-end encryption (e2ee) if they could be held responsible for content they can't see on their platform.
EARN IT Act Structure
Conversely, the Leahy amendment was intended to provide an encryption safe-harbor, deliberately creating a carveout in the bill that seemingly would allow providers to offer strong encryption on their services without facing liability for doing so. The amendment states that a provider may not be held liable under state and federal law because it "utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services"; "does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication"; or "fails to take an action that would otherwise undermine the ability of the provider to offer full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services."

Unfortunately, while we applaud Senator Leahy's intentions, this amendment still leaves social media providers, and thus encryption, vulnerable on multiple grounds.
Confidentiality
The first, and most insurmountable, issue is that under the new structure, there is no longer any constructive way for companies to "earn" the liability shield provided by Section 230 when it comes to CSAM. Consequently, companies who choose to use strong e2ee on their products would still be susceptible to lengthy and expensive court proceedings to prove that they were not liable for content they couldn't have known about because of their choice to protect their users.

Further exacerbating these concerns is that the law enforcement-heavy commission from the original EARN IT Act still exists, just now in an advisory capacity to produce recommendations. Given the committee makeup, it is still very likely these recommendations could include provisions for exceptional access, whether or not they explicitly mention e2ee. Such a recommendation could influence judges' rulings in the lawsuits, or be used to apply reputation pressure to companies. Some large and well-resourced companies may be capable of swallowing the cost of these litigation and reputational risks in service of their users' security, but for most it'll be easier to simply forgo e2ee altogether, further weakening security across the internet. It is unlikely that any amendment that is plausibly passable in Congress will fix the threat to encryption posed by the new version of EARN IT; the structure of the bill itself serves as a disincentive to building e2ee systems, thus leaving users of technology more vulnerable to cyber threats.
"Client"-side
Another threat is that companies could be held liable for failing to implement technologies that undermine the confidentiality guarantees that e2ee systems are intended to confer. Such compulsory technologies might include things like client-side scanning, where the system takes a "fingerprint" (also called a hash) of each of a user's images and videos before they are sent as messages, to compare against a database of known CSAM. If the hash matches something in the CSAM database, the system prevents the message from being sent (and could also report that message to some authority). Theoretically, a system that uses client-side scanning could still send messages encrypted end to end, and so the Leahy amendment would not offer any protection, but many of the same confidentiality concerns with backdoored "e2ee" systems would continue to apply.

It is impossible to guarantee that a scanning system will only be used to detect CSAM, and not also expanded to attempt to detect terrorist or other extremist content. Additionally, client side scanning still runs afoul of the fundamental principle of encryption: that only the people involved in the conversation can access the content of the message. That's because in this case, "client-side" is a misnomer.

Client-side generally means that all the data involved stays on the user's device, i.e. the client's side. But in the case of CSAM, it's not possible to do the scanning entirely on the client side, but rather will likely involve computation and/or sharing of metadata outside of the device, like with a server or database. There's two main reasons for that:
New Fourth Amendment State Actor Problems

The data bases are too large to be stored on user devices like smartphones, even in compressed form.

Second, the primary algorithm used for scanning images and videos is PhotoDNA, which has not been publicly released (raising a whole other set of abuse concerns), most likely because it is fragile, and thus susceptible to bad actors reverse engineering and circumventing it. Thus, it is likely not possible to deploy PhotoDNA on consumer devices without risking that it will become ineffective everywhere it is deployed, or creating a slew of additional security concerns.

Ultimately, the Leahy amendment is a powerful acknowledgement of the importance of end-to-end encryption, but the structure of the EARN IT act is intrinsically antithetical to a robust e2ee ecosystem. Companies will be disincentivized from building and maintaining e2ee systems out of fear of lawsuits, and will still likely be forced to handle their users' messages in ways those users would consider a violation of trust and confidentiality.

In addition to its myriad of encryption problems, the EARN IT Act transforms social media providers into "agents of the government" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, with potentially disastrous consequences for CSAM prosecutions.

A private entity can be transformed into an agent of the government "[w]hen a statute or regulation compels a private party to conduct a search" (Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association, 489 U.S. 602, 614 (1989)). When the private party is not directly instructed by the government to conduct a search, the court assesses the context for evidence of "the Government's encouragement, endorsement, and participation" in the search. Id. "Even when a search is not required by law, however, if a statute or regulation so strongly encourages a private party to conduct a search that the search is not 'primarily the result of private initiative,' then the Fourth Amendment applies" (United States v. Stevenson 727 F.3d 826, 829 (8th. Circuit 2013)).

Such transformation is legally significant: if a private party becomes an agent of the government who conducts searches for the government, the Fourth Amendment applies to those searches. When a search is conducted without a warrant required by the Fourth Amendment, the information seized from that unconstitutional search is properly excluded from evidence - and when it is the basis for a CSAM prosecution, the prosecution can be dismissed. And in the case of EARN IT, any mandate for a company to search through a consumer's content would violate the warrant requirement, and therefore not be usable in court.

Currently, providers voluntarily filter to identify CSAM or alleged CSAM on their services. When they identify what they believe is CSAM, they report it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which then passes it on to law enforcement. The initial search is done voluntarily and the private search doctrine affords providers the leeway they need to execute the search. They are obliged to report CSAM to NCMEC when they have knowledge of the CSAM, but they are not obliged to search for it. Courts consistently reject defendants' challenges to these warrantless, voluntary searches by providers. Courts(1) have(2) repeatedly(3) held that "[ a] reporting requirement, standing alone," does not transform a provider into a state actor and that internet service providers act to further their own business interests when conducting these searches.

When legislating in this space, Congress must be very careful not to provide defendants an opportunity to exclude evidence of their abuse of children. Indeed, such past Congressional action resulted in the determination by the 10th Circuit that NCMEC itself, a nonprofit that Congress subsequently granted certain privileges, was either a government entity or an agent of the government (United States v. Ackerman 831 F.3d 1302 (10th Cir. 2016)). The EARN IT Act, as amended by the Senate Judiciary Committee, subjects providers to state laws that have the practical effect of compelling them to conduct searches for CSAM on their services, turning them into state actors for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

EARN IT subjects social media providers to civil and criminal liability under state CSAM laws and does not require these laws to match federal law. In other words, though federal law would hold providers responsible only for "knowingly" facilitating the distribution of CSAM, state equivalents could hold them liable for "recklessly" or "negligently" facilitating distribution. There are dozens and dozens of state CSAM laws, some of which rely on a "reckless" standard, and others which use a "knowledge" standard but define knowledge in a way that actually means reckless disregard. For example, in Florida statute 847.0137, a person is criminally responsible if they knowingly transmit child pornography. "Knowingly" is defined broadly as "having the general knowledge of, reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry of both: (a) The character and content of any material described in this section which is reasonably susceptible of examination by the defendant; and (b) The age of the minor.""

Having a "ground to believe" something is not "knowing" it. Opening up a social media platform to liability when the platform merely has a ground to believe that child pornography is carried on the platform may "so strongly encourage[]" the provider to search for it that the search no longer becomes merely a private initiative (United States v. Stevenson). Indeed, pressuring providers to conduct such searches seems to be the purpose of lifting a provider's liability shield. Such a change actually would give purveyors of CSAM a colorable argument that the provider's search for CSAM is an unconstitutional warrantless search conducted by an agent of the government, the fruits of which must be suppressed.

Additionally, at least two state laws impose criminal liability on providers who fail to inspect the content shared on their platforms for obscene materials. The EARN IT Act would remove the liability shield that providers now enjoy, and coerce them to conduct on behalf of the government the very warrantless searches that the Fourth Amendment proscribes. In Illinois, "[a] person commits obscenity when, with knowledge of the nature or content thereof, or recklessly failing to exercise reasonable inspection which would have disclosed the nature or content thereof" they "publish or make available anything obscene." And in South Carolina, "[i]t is unlawful for any person knowingly to disseminate obscenity." Knowingly is defined as "having general knowledge of the content of the subject material or performance, or failing after reasonable opportunity to exercise reasonable inspection which would have disclosed the character of the material or performance." These statutes would compel providers to inspect their users' content, and would violate the Fourth Amendment.

***

The EARN IT Act continues to be plagued with significant free expression, encryption, and Fourth Amendment problems. We urge Congress to reject this proposal. Much can and should be done to protect children online, and we encourage members to turn instead to the ideas put forth in Senator Wyden's legislation, the Invest in Child Safety Act. This legislation would protect children online by directing more resources toward prosecution of cases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The New EARN IT Act Still Threatens Encryption and Child Exploitation Prosecutions - Center for Democracy and Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This blog post is the second in a two-part series analyzing the latest version of the EARN IT Act that passed out the Senate Judiciary Committee. The first post introduced the changes made to the structure of the bill and discussed how those changes fail to alleviate the free expression concerns that the bill poses.

# data[].attributes.headline
All Lives Matter protesters re-enacted George Floyd's death as a Black Lives Matter march went by

# data[].attributes.subject
All Lives Matter protesters re-enacted George Floyd's death as a Black Lives Matter march went by

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about how a corrections officer was suspended and a FedEx worker was fired for reenacting the death of George Floyd
This happened when there was a BLM march going on. The two men shouted that what happened to George Floyd was what happened when you “don’t comply”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
all lives matter protesters re-enacted george floyd's death as a black lives matter march went by - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
All Lives Matter protesters re-enacted George Floyd's death as a Black Lives Matter march went by

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A New Jersey corrections officer was suspended and a FedEx worker fired after two All Lives Matter demonstrators mockingly re-enacted George Floyd's death on Monday to apparently counter a Black Lives Matter march in Franklinville, New Jersey.

# data[].attributes.headline
Preliminary reports indicate some patients may develop a so-called “post-acute COVID-19 syndrome,” in which they experience persistent symptoms after recovering from their initial illness. The syndrome appears to affect those with mild as well as moderate-to-severe disease. The incidence, natural history and etiology of these symptoms is currently unknown. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Preliminary reports indicate some patients may develop a so-called “post-acute COVID-19 syndrome,” in which they experience persistent symptoms after recovering from their initial illness. The syndrome appears to affect those with mild as well as moderate-to-severe disease. The incidence, natural history and etiology of these symptoms is currently unknown. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On this page:
The following is a curated review of key information and literature about this topic. It is not comprehensive of all data related to this subject.
Overview

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, initial descriptions of the symptomology focused on the clinical presentations of patients in the acute, inpatient setting. In the months since, information on how patients with mild disease present has become available ( Gandhi, April 2020), along with information on the fairly common occurrence of asymptomatic disease ( Moriarty, March 2020; Kimball, April 2020; Wei, April 2020; He, April 2020).

More recently, data have emerged that some patients continue to experience symptoms related to COVID-19 after the acute phase of infection. There is currently no clearly delineated consensus definition for the condition: terminology has included "long COVID," "post-COVID syndrome" and "post-acute COVID-19 syndrome." Among the lay public, the phrase " long haulers " is also being used. Here we review the current literature on post-acute symptoms in patients with COVID-19, using the term "post-acute COVID-19 syndrome."

Key Literature

Preliminary reports indicate some patients may develop a so-called "post-acute COVID-19 syndrome," in which they experience persistent symptoms after recovering from their initial illness. The syndrome appears to affect those with mild as well as moderate-to-severe disease. The incidence, natural history and etiology of these symptoms is currently unknown.

Follow-up of adults with non-critical COVID-19 two months after symptoms' onset (Carvalho-Schneider, October 2020).
Patient population:

Descriptive clinical follow-up study of 150 patients with non-critical COVID-19 on days 7, 30 and 60 after confirm ation by RT-PCR at Tours University Hospital from March 17-June 3, 2020 .

The mean age was 49 ± 15 years.

More than half of the patients (54%, n=80/150) had at least one comorbid condition and half were health care professionals (n=75/150).

The most common symptoms at disease onset were flu-like symptoms (87%, n=129/150), anosmia/ageusia (59%, n=89/150) and fever (51%, n=76/150) .

Patients with or without clinical signs of pneumonia but without need for oxygen therapy were defined as having mild/moderate COVID-19.

Patients with signs of pneumonia requiring oxygen therapy but not needing ICU admission were defined as having severe COVID-19 , according to the WHO definition.

Primary endpoint:

To describe the clinical evolution and predictors of symptom persistence during 2-month follow-up in adults with non-critical COVID-19.
Key findings:

For the follow-up at D30 and D60, phone calls were performed at a mean of 32.7 ± 2.5 days (range 27 to 37) and 59.7 ±1.7 (range 57 to 67) after symptom onset.

Persisting symptoms were defined by the presence at day 30 or day 60 of at least one of the following: weight loss ≥ 5%, severe dyspnea or asthenia, chest pain, palpitations, anosmia/ageusia, headache, cutaneous signs, arthralgia, myalgia, digestive disorders, fever or using sick leave .

At D30, 68% (n=103/150) of patients presented at least one symptom , falling to 66% (n=86/130) at D60 .

The most common persistent symptom was anosmia/ageusia : 59% (n=89/150) at symptom onset, 28% (n=40/150) at D30 and 23% (n=29/130) at D60.

Dyspnea occurred in 36.7% (n=55/150) patients at D30 and 30% (n=39/130) at D60.

Asthenia occurred in h alf of patients (n=74/150) at D30 and 40% (n=52/130) at D60.

Persistent symptoms at D60 were significantly associated with age of 40 to 60 years, hospital admission and abnormal auscultation at symptom onset.

At D30, severe COVID-19 and/or dyspnea at symptom onset were additional factors associated with persistent symptoms.

Limitations:

The patient population was younger in age and half were healt h care professionals, so findings may not be generalizable to the general public.

Only non-critical COVID-19 patients were included.

Post-discharge persistent symptoms and health-related quality of life after hospitalization for COVID-19 (Garrigues, August 2020).
Patient population:

Phone-based survey study of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who had been discharged.

After excluding patients who died, had dementia, were bedridden, were not reachable, didn't speak French or declined to participate, 120 patients were included in the study (96 who had not been in the ICU and 24 who had been in the ICU).

Primary endpoint:

To assess the persistence of symptoms and health-related quality of life challenges after discharge in patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19.
Key findings:

The mean age was 63.2 (standard deviation, 15.7 days), and 62.5% were male.

The most common comorbidities included hypertension (46.7%), an elevated body mass index (47.5%) and diabetes (21.7%).

The mean time of interview after admission was 110.9 days (SD of 11.1 days).

The most common reported symptoms were fatigue (55%), dyspnea (42%), memory loss (34%), sleep disorders (30.8%) and difficulty with concentration (28%).

Comparisons between ICU and non-ICU patients showed no statistically significant differences regarding these symptoms.

Before their infection, 46.7% were active workers; of these, 69.1% had gone back to work at the time of the phone interview.

Limitations:

Single-center study with a small number of patients and without a control group of patients discharged for other reasons. Over half of the sample was not included in the analysis; this may affect the generalizability of the results.

The study relied on patient self-report and may have been subject to incomplete recall or recall bias.

There was a lack of information on symptom history before acute COVID-19 illness.

There was a lack of details on symptom severity.

The presence of comorbidities may have impacted self-reported symptoms.

Overall, in this study of patients with COVID-19 discharged from the hospital and interviewed over 3 months post diagnosis, the majority of patients experienced continued symptoms, most commonly including fatigue and dyspnea.

Persistent symptoms in patients after acute COVID-19 (Carfi, July 2020).
Patient population:

143 COVID-19 patients discharged from a hospital in Italy who had no fever for 3 days, improvement in symptoms and 2 negative SARS-CoV-2 test results 24 hours apart.

The mean age was 56.5 years (SD 14.6; range 19-84). 53 (37%) were women. 10% were active smokers.

Primary endpoint:

To assess persistent symptoms in patients discharged from hospitalization for COVID-19.
Key findings:

The most common comorbidity was hypertension (35%), followed by thyroid disease (18%), immune disorders (11%), COPD (9%) and diabetes (7%); rates of other comorbidities were less than 5%.

63% engaged in regular physical activity prior to admission.

7% of participants had evidence of interstitial pneumonia during their hospitalization, and 54% required oxygen therapy.

Mean length of hospital stay was 13.5 days (SD 9.7).

21 patients (15%) received noninvasive ventilation; 7 patients (5%) received invasive ventilation.

Patients were assessed a mean 60.3 days after onset of the first COVID-19 symptom (SD 13.6).

87% of patients had persistent symptoms.
32% had 1 or 2 persistent symptoms, while 55% had 3 or more persistent symptoms.

Most common reported symptoms were fatigue (53%), dyspnea (43%), arthralgias (27%) and chest pain (22%).

1% of patients reported a worsened quality of life.

No patients had fever at time of interview.

Limitations:

There was a lack of information on symptom history before acute COVID-19 illness.

There was a lack of details on symptom severity.

The presence of comorbidities may have impacted self-reported symptoms.

The majority of patients had at least moderate disease, as evidenced by the need for oxygen; this limits the generalizability of the findings to patients with mild disease.

Single-center study with a small number of patients and without a control group of patients discharged for other reasons.

Overall, in this study of patients with COVID-19 discharged from the hospital with SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance by RT-PCR and interviewed approximately 2 months after diagnosis, the majority of patients experienced continued symptoms, with the most common symptoms being fatigue and dyspnea.

Post-discharge symptoms and rehabilitation needs in survivors of COVID-19 infection: A cross-sectional evaluation (Halpin, July 2020).
Patient population:

Telephone survey study of 100 patients with COVID-19 discharged from the hospital at least 4 weeks prior to study enrollment; 32 patients had been in the ICU.
Primary endpoint:

To assess patients' symptoms post-discharge and the impact on their daily life.
Key findings:

The median age of the patients was 58.5 (IQR 34-84) in the ICU group and 70.5 (IQR 20-93) in the non-ICU group.

7% required some form of oxygenation support.

4% of patients in the ICU group and 51.5% of the non-ICU group were men.

The most common comorbidity was hypertension (43.8% in the ICU group and 39.7% in the non-ICU group).

Other common comorbidities were being overweight or obese (35% in the ICU group, 54.4% in the non-ICU group), type 2 diabetes (28.1% in the ICU group, 27.9% in the non-ICU group) and gastrointestinal disease (15.6% in the ICU group, 29.4% in the non-ICU group).

3% of patients in the ICU group and 70.6% in the non-ICU group had 3 or more significant comorbidities.

Patients were interviewed between 29 and 71 days (mean 48 days) post-

New fatigue was the most common reported symptom.
72% of participants in the ICU group reported fatigue, while 60.3% in the non-ICU group did.

The next most common symptoms were dyspnea (65.6% in the ICU group and 42.6% in the non-ICU group) and psychological distress (46.9% in the ICU group and 23.5% in the non-ICU group).

8% of patients in the ICU group and 45.6% in the non-ICU group reported a decline in their health status, as measured by the EQ-5D.

Limitations:

There was a lack of information on symptom history before acute COVID-19 illness.

There was a lack of details on symptom severity.

The presence of comorbidities may have impacted self-reported symptoms.

The majority of patients had at least moderate disease, as evidenced by the need for oxygen; this limits the generalizability of the findings to patients with mild disease.

Single-center study with a small number of patients and without a control group of patients discharged for other reasons.

Telephone contact was made at a single point, with data collection not capturing how problems evolved over time.

Overall, in this study of patients with COVID-19 discharged from the hospital at least 4 weeks prior to study enrollment, the majority of patients experienced continued symptoms, with the most common symptoms being fatigue and dyspnea.

Symptom duration and risk factors for delayed return to usual health among outpatients with COVID-19 in a multi-state health care systems network - United States, March-June 2020 (Tenforde, July 2020).
Patient population:

A multi-state telephone interview study of a random sample of 274 patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test at an outpatient visit at one of 14 academic centers in 13 U.S.
Primary endpoint:

To compare characteristics among respondents who reported returning or not returning to their usual state of health by the date of the interview.
Key findings:

A phone call was attempted for 582 patients; of these, 325 (56%) completed an interview.

Interviews were conducted 12-41 days after the patients were tested; the median time between the outpatient visit and the interview was 16 days.

After excluding patients who were interviewed by proxy, had a prior COVID-19 diagnosis before the outpatient visit or who did not answer all the questions, 292 patients remained.
Of these, 274 (94%) reported one or more symptoms at testing and were included in this data analysis.

The median age of symptomatic respondents was 42.5 years (IQR = 31-54 years); 142 (52%) were female.

The median number of days respondents reported feeling unwell before being tested for SARS-CoV-2 was 3 (IQR = 2-7 days).

Of the 262 patients for whom data were available regarding subsequent hospitalization, 93% were not hospitalized.

Among 270 patients for whom data were available, 35% reported not having returned to their usual state of health.
Most common symptoms included cough (43%), fatigue (35%) and dyspnea (29%).

Among patients ≥50 years of age, 47% reported not having returned to their usual state of health.

57% of patients with ≥3 chronic conditions reported not having returned to their baseline state of health.

After adjusting for other factors, age ≥50 versus 18-34 years (aOR 2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14-4.58) and reporting three or more versus no chronic medical conditions (aOR 2.29; 95% CI = 1.07-4.90), obesity (aOR 2.31, 95% CI = 1.21-4.42) and presence of an underlying psychiatric condition (aOR 2.32, 95% CI = 1.17-4.58) were associated with not having returned to usual health.

Limitations:

The response rate was somewhat low; this may affect the generalizability of the results.

Complete patient data was not available for several of the analyses performed.

The study relied on patient self-report and may have been subject to incomplete recall or recall bias.

Overall, in this study of patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, primarily had mild disease and were interviewed a median of 16 days post diagnosis, the majority had continued symptoms. The most common symptoms included cough and fatigue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On this page: The following is a curated review of key information and literature about this topic. It is not comprehensive of all data related to this subject. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, initial descriptions of the symptomology focused on the clinical presentations of patients in the acute, inpatient setting.

# data[].attributes.body
Global warming has caused animals habitat loss and the frequent storms have caused animals lives to be at risk. Climate change may have a negative effect on humans but the animals are suffering to

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effects of Climate Change | Threats | WWF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sea levels are rising and oceans are becoming warmer. Longer, more intense droughts threaten crops, wildlife and freshwater supplies. From polar bears in the Arctic to marine turtles off the coast of Africa, our planet's diversity of life is at risk from the changing climate.

# data[].attributes.body
Deforestation is main cause for animals loss of habitat. Many animals have gone on the endangered list or extinct because of humans cutting the trees down and turning the into farmland/ housing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
John Foxx/Stockbyte/Getty Images

Tropical rainforests are home to about 80 percent of the world's known plant and animal species. Unfortunately, these rainforests are highly vulnerable to deforestation through both human and natural means. Depletion of the rainforests can have devastating effects on the animal life contained within. Environmental changes and loss of habitat often make it impossible for some animals to survive, let alone thrive, leading some species to endangerment and even extinction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Effects of Rainforest Depletion on Animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tropical rainforests are home to about 80 percent of the world's known plant and animal species. Unfortunately, these rainforests are highly vulnerable to deforestation through both human and natural means. Depletion of the rainforests can have devastating effects on the animal life contained within. Environmental ...

# data[].attributes.body
Vaping is not only dangerous to you, but also to those around you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The safety and long-term health effects of using e-cigarettes or other vaping products still aren't well known. In September 2019, federal and state health authorities began investigating an outbreak of a severe lung disease associated with e-cigarettes and other vaping products. We're closely monitoring the situation and will update our content as soon as more information is available.

Many people believe that vaping is safer than smoking, while others think that it is an effective tool to quit smoking.

However, vaping carries several dangers, both for the person using it and the people around them.

If a person is considering the use of e-cigarettes or vaping to help them quit smoking or because they want to follow a trend, it is essential to understand what vaping entails and its health risks.

Keep reading to learn more about the types of vaping, and the various health risks that it carries.

Though vaping may eliminate some of the threats that come from inhaling smoke, it is not without its risks and health concerns.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine presented 47 conclusions about vaping, most of which are negative. The few positive findings revolve around the idea that if a person eliminates the use of combustible cigarettes, they will reduce their exposure to smoke-related carcinogens.

However, there is a lot of strong evidence that reinforces the negative aspects of vaping, such as:

developing a dependency on vaping

intentionally or unintentionally drinking the fluid, which can be toxic and fatal

devices, particularly those that are modified or of poor quality, have a risk of exploding, which can cause burns or projectiles

vaping devices can release toxins in addition to nicotine

However, the long-term consequences of vaping generally remain unknown. This is because vaping devices are relatively new to the market, and researchers have not had sufficient time to study the long-term effects thoroughly.
Learn more about the risks and benefits of e-cigarettes here.
There are several different types of vaping devices. The type a person uses often depends on personal preference, but there are some notable differences between types.

According to the Center on Addictions, there are three types of vaping devices, categorized as first, second, and third generation devices.

First generation

The first generation vaping devices are:

These devices are similar to cigarettes in appearance and come in disposable and rechargeable forms. They are generally the least expensive option for people who vape.

Second generation

The second generation vaping devices are:

Second generation vaping devices look more like pens than cigarettes. They are available in disposable or rechargeable forms and come with a refillable e-liquid canister. E-liquid for second generation vapes is available in a range of flavors.

Third generation

The third generation contains several types of vaping device, including:

Mechanical Modified Nicotine Delivery Systems (MODs)

vape MODs or personal vaporizer

electronic hookah

JUUL (resembles a flash drive)

The third generation of devices typically:

have a longer battery life

have options for different flavored liquids

have a longer battery life

have modification options

are primarily rechargeable

deliver more nicotine

Some liquid refills contain nicotine in varying amounts, while others may be nicotine-free. Modifications in third generation devices allow people to add additional products to their e-liquid.

The liquids also come in a variety of flavors. Some taste like cigarettes, while others may have a minty or fruity flavor.

Vaping can have several potential adverse effects on a person's body, including the heart, lungs, teeth, and gums.

The heart

A recent review indicated that vaping could cause problems with a person's heart, lungs, and circulation. The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes release toxins that can cause harm. However, the researchers indicate that further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of vaping.

One 2019 study found that there was no connection between vaping and heart disease. However, the researchers did indicate that anyone who uses either traditional cigarettes or vaping devices are at an increased risk of developing heart disease.

Another 2019 study looking at the same data found an association between vaping and an increased risk of heart attack, heart disease, stroke, or angina.

Researchers working on a study in 2018 had similar findings. They found that vaping leads to an increased risk of heart attack regardless of the user's other lifestyle choices.

Further research into the safety of vaping is required to determine the relationship between vaping and the heart. Most researchers do agree that vaping is still safer for the heart than smoking, but vaping still presents risks.

The lungs

Overall, vaping may be better for a person's lungs than smoking cigarettes. However, researchers must carry out further studies to identify the short- and long-term effects vaping has on lung health. The evidence so far is mixed.

One small study published in 2019 found that there was no significant increase in risk to lung health between people who only vaped and those that neither smoke nor vape.

A 2018 study indicated that there is some evidence that vaping can affect the circulatory system. However, the authors suggest that more research is needed to determine vaping's effect on lung health.

However, a 2018 study using rats found that e-cigarettes are just as bad for the lungs as smoking and that long-term exposure has the potential to cause significant lung damage. Researchers did state, however, that they only studied one type of e-cigarette.

Teeth and gum health

Vaping may cause issues with teeth and gum health. Several studies have indicated that vaping can irritate the gums and throat and may make a person more prone to tooth decay.

For example, a study in 2016 found that people who vaped have an increased risk of developing periodontal diseases.

A 2014 review that analyzed 44 articles on the effects of vaping on health also found that vaping can irritate the gums and throat.

A further study from 2018 found that vaping with sweet flavored liquids increases the likelihood that a person may develop tooth decay due to increased bacterial growth.

A person should not use vaping as a means to quit smoking. The American Heart Association (AHA) recommend that anyone who is trying to quit smoking should use a proven method to improve chances of success.

The AHA also recommend that people who do not smoke should not start vaping. This is particularly true for people who are pregnant and children.

People should also avoid modifying their vaporizers. Modifications can lead to burns and possible explosions.

People should not use liquids that the manufacturer does not recommend. Also, people should avoid drinking or coming into contact with the liquid that vaping sevices contain.
Learn more about the side effects of smoking nicotine free e-cigarettes here.
Most preliminary research seems to indicate that smoking carries more significant risks than vaping. However, some studies have found it to be equally harmful.

It is important to remember that research into the health effects of vaping is still ongoing. Researchers might identify additional short- and long-term health concerns relating to vaping in the years to come.

The situation regarding vaping marijuana has similarities to that of vaping nicotine-based products. There is not enough research to form any firm conclusions about the safety of vaping marijuana, and the research that currently exists is polarizing.

However, one article discussing early research indicates that vaping cannabis is less harmful than smoking it. So, while it isn't without risk, it could be an improvement to smoking marijuana. As before, researchers must carry out further studies.

A 2017 study looked at a case where a man who had never smoked a cigarette entered the hospital with a severe acute lung injury following years of vaping marijuana. However, results remain inconclusive. Researchers state that their primary reason for laying the blame on the vaping of marijuana was because they were unable to identify any other plausible cause.

It is important to note that the researchers think these adverse effects stem from chemicals that manufacturers use to extract active ingredients from raw marijuana when creating the cannabis oil used in vaping devices.

Vaping is not necessarily a safe alternative to smoking.

Though many researchers agree that smoking is likely worse for a person's health than vaping, research is still in its infancy. There is, however, growing evidence that vaping may have equally ill effects on the heart, lungs, and mouth.

Additional research is required to determine the long- and short-term effects of vaping.

People who are pregnant, people looking to quit smoking, and children, should not vape.

Everyone should exercise caution before starting to vape.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The safety and long-term health effects of using e-cigarettes or other vaping products still aren't well known. In September 2019, federal and state health authorities began investigating an outbreak of a severe lung disease associated with e-cigarettes and other vaping products .

# data[].attributes.body
Stem cells are essentially the body's raw material, and are the origin of specialized cells such as brain cells. Stem cells can divide into additional "daughter" cells which can either for new stem cells or form into specialized cells. Since these cells can form into other cells, they are the subject of heavy interest as they can potentially replace diseased cells which can cure diseases or repair tissue. However, the source of controversy comes in one of the sources of the stem cells: embryos. Embryonic stem cells are much more versatile compared to adult stem cells, and can potentially be used to repair tissue or organs. Some believe it immoral to take cells from embryos, but in my opinion it is completely necessary. Adult cells are not nearly as versatile, and the stem cells are taken from unneeded embryos that were never planted in a woman's uterus in the first place. In my opinion, this has the potential to lead to great medical leaps that will rapidly lead to development in curing diseases and tissue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You've heard about stem cells in the news, and perhaps you've wondered if they might help you or a loved one with a serious disease. You may wonder what stem cells are, how they're being used to treat disease and injury, and why they're the subject of such vigorous debate.

Here are some answers to frequently asked questions about stem cells.

What are stem cells?

Stem cells are the body's raw materials - cells from which all other cells with specialized functions are generated. Under the right conditions in the body or a laboratory, stem cells divide to form more cells called daughter cells.

These daughter cells become either new stem cells or specialized cells (differentiation) with a more specific function, such as blood cells, brain cells, heart muscle cells or bone cells. No other cell in the body has the natural ability to generate new cell types.

Why is there such an interest in stem cells?

Researchers hope stem cell studies can help to:

Increase understanding of how diseases occur. By watching stem cells mature into cells in bones, heart muscle, nerves, and other organs and tissue, researchers may better understand how diseases and conditions develop.

Generate healthy cells to replace cells affected by disease (regenerative medicine). Stem cells can be guided into becoming specific cells that can be used in people to regenerate and repair tissues that have been damaged or affected by disease.

People who might benefit from stem cell therapies include those with spinal cord injuries, type 1 diabetes, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, stroke, burns, cancer and osteoarthritis.

Stem cells may have the potential to be grown to become new tissue for use in transplant and regenerative medicine. Researchers continue to advance the knowledge on stem cells and their applications in transplant and regenerative medicine.

Test new drugs for safety and effectiveness. Before using investigational drugs in people, researchers can use some types of stem cells to test the drugs for safety and quality. This type of testing will most likely first have a direct impact on drug development for cardiac toxicity testing.

New areas of study include the effectiveness of using human stem cells that have been programmed into tissue-specific cells to test new drugs. For the testing of new drugs to be accurate, the cells must be programmed to acquire properties of the type of cells targeted by the drug. Techniques to program cells into specific cells are under study.

For instance, nerve cells could be generated to test a new drug for a nerve disease. Tests could show whether the new drug had any effect on the cells and whether the cells were harmed.

Where do stem cells come from?

There are several sources of stem cells:

Embryonic stem cells. These stem cells come from embryos that are 3 to 5 days old. At this stage, an embryo is called a blastocyst and has about 150 cells.

These are pluripotent (ploo-RIP-uh-tunt) stem cells, meaning they can divide into more stem cells or can become any type of cell in the body. This versatility allows embryonic stem cells to be used to regenerate or repair diseased tissue and organs.

Adult stem cells. These stem cells are found in small numbers in most adult tissues, such as bone marrow or fat. Compared with embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells have a more limited ability to give rise to various cells of the body.

Until recently, researchers thought adult stem cells could create only similar types of cells. For instance, researchers thought that stem cells residing in the bone marrow could give rise only to blood cells.

However, emerging evidence suggests that adult stem cells may be able to create various types of cells. For instance, bone marrow stem cells may be able to create bone or heart muscle cells.

This research has led to early-stage clinical trials to test usefulness and safety in people. For example, adult stem cells are currently being tested in people with neurological or heart disease.

Adult cells altered to have properties of embryonic stem cells. Scientists have successfully transformed regular adult cells into stem cells using genetic reprogramming. By altering the genes in the adult cells, researchers can reprogram the cells to act similarly to embryonic stem cells.

This new technique may allow use of reprogrammed cells instead of embryonic stem cells and prevent immune system rejection of the new stem cells. However, scientists don't yet know whether using altered adult cells will cause adverse effects in humans.

Researchers have been able to take regular connective tissue cells and reprogram them to become functional heart cells. In studies, animals with heart failure that were injected with new heart cells experienced improved heart function and survival time.

Perinatal stem cells. Researchers have discovered stem cells in amniotic fluid as well as umbilical cord blood. These stem cells have the ability to change into specialized cells.

Amniotic fluid fills the sac that surrounds and protects a developing fetus in the uterus. Researchers have identified stem cells in samples of amniotic fluid drawn from pregnant women for testing or treatment - a procedure called amniocentesis.

Why is there a controversy about using embryonic stem cells?

Embryonic stem cells are obtained from early-stage embryos - a group of cells that forms when eggs are fertilized with sperm at an in vitro fertilization clinic. Because human embryonic stem cells are extracted from human embryos, several questions and issues have been raised about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.

The National Institutes of Health created guidelines for human stem cell research in 2009. The guidelines define embryonic stem cells and how they may be used in research, and include recommendations for the donation of embryonic stem cells. Also, the guidelines state that embryonic stem cells from embryos created by in vitro fertilization can be used only when the embryo is no longer needed.

Where do these embryos come from?

The embryos being used in embryonic stem cell research come from eggs that were fertilized at in vitro fertilization clinics but never implanted in women's uteruses. The stem cells are donated with informed consent from donors. The stem cells can live and grow in special solutions in test tubes or petri dishes in laboratories.

Why can't researchers use adult stem cells instead?

Although research into adult stem cells is promising, adult stem cells may not be as versatile and durable as are embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells may not be able to be manipulated to produce all cell types, which limits how adult stem cells can be used to treat diseases.

Adult stem cells are also more likely to contain abnormalities due to environmental hazards, such as toxins, or from errors acquired by the cells during replication. However, researchers have found that adult stem cells are more adaptable than was first thought.

What are stem cell lines and why do researchers want to use them?

A stem cell line is a group of cells that all descend from a single original stem cell and are grown in a lab. Cells in a stem cell line keep growing but don't differentiate into specialized cells. Ideally, they remain free of genetic defects and continue to create more stem cells. Clusters of cells can be taken from a stem cell line and frozen for storage or shared with other researchers.

What is stem cell therapy (regenerative medicine) and how does it work?

Stem cell therapy, also known as regenerative medicine, promotes the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. It is the next chapter in organ transplantation and uses cells instead of donor organs, which are limited in supply.

Researchers grow stem cells in a lab. These stem cells are manipulated to specialize into specific types of cells, such as heart muscle cells, blood cells or nerve cells.

The specialized cells can then be implanted into a person. For example, if the person has heart disease, the cells could be injected into the heart muscle. The healthy transplanted heart muscle cells could then contribute to repairing the injured heart muscle.

Researchers have already shown that adult bone marrow cells guided to become heart-like cells can repair heart tissue in people, and more research is ongoing.

Have stem cells already been used to treat diseases?

Yes. Doctors have performed stem cell transplants, also known as bone marrow transplants. In stem cell transplants, stem cells replace cells damaged by chemotherapy or disease or serve as a way for the donor's immune system to fight some types of cancer and blood-related diseases, such as leukemia, lymphoma, neuroblastoma and multiple myeloma. These transplants use adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood.

Researchers are testing adult stem cells to treat other conditions, including a number of degenerative diseases such as heart failure.

What are the potential problems with using embryonic stem cells in humans?

For embryonic stem cells to be useful, researchers must be certain that the stem cells will differentiate into the specific cell types desired.

Researchers have discovered ways to direct stem cells to become specific types of cells, such as directing embryonic stem cells to become heart cells. Research is ongoing in this area.

Embryonic stem cells can also grow irregularly or specialize in different cell types spontaneously. Researchers are studying how to control the growth and differentiation of embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells might also trigger an immune response in which the recipient's body attacks the stem cells as foreign invaders, or the stem cells might simply fail to function as expected, with unknown consequences. Researchers continue to study how to avoid these possible complications.

What is therapeutic cloning, and what benefits might it offer?

Therapeutic cloning, also called somatic cell nuclear transfer, is a technique to create versatile stem cells independent of fertilized eggs. In this technique, the nucleus is removed from an unfertilized egg. This nucleus contains the genetic material. The nucleus is also removed from the cell of a donor.

This donor nucleus is then injected into the egg, replacing the nucleus that was removed, in a process called nuclear transfer. The egg is allowed to divide and soon forms a blastocyst. This process creates a line of stem cells that is genetically identical to the donor's cells - in essence, a clone.

Some researchers believe that stem cells derived from therapeutic cloning may offer benefits over those from fertilized eggs because cloned cells are less likely to be rejected once transplanted back into the donor and may allow researchers to see exactly how a disease develops.

Has therapeutic cloning in people been successful?

No. Researchers haven't been able to successfully perform therapeutic cloning with humans despite success in a number of other species.

However, in recent studies, researchers have created human pluripotent stem cells by modifying the therapeutic cloning process. Researchers continue to study the potential of therapeutic cloning in people.

Show references

See more In-depth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Answers to your questions about stem cell research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get answers about where stem cells come from, why they're important for understanding and treating disease, and the ethics of using them.

# data[].attributes.body
This article presents 10 ways we can be a friend to LGBTQ people. In the article it said that, "believe that all people, regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation, should be treated with dignity and respect." And this is a completely true statement because we are all humans and need to treat others the way we want to be treated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
10 Ways to Be an Ally & a Friend

10 Ways to Be an Ally & a Friend

1. Be a listener.

2. Be open-minded.

3. Be willing to talk.

4. Be inclusive and invite LGBT friends to hang out with your friends and family.

5. Don't assume that all your friends and co-workers are straight. Someone close to you could be looking for support in their coming-out process. Not making assumptions will give them the space they need.

6. Anti-LGBT comments and jokes are harmful. Let your friends, family and co-workers know that you find them offensive.

7. Confront your own prejudices and bias, even if it is uncomfortable to do so.

8. Defend your LGBT friends against discrimination.

9. Believe that all people, regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation, should be treated with dignity and respect.

10. If you see LGBT people being misrepresented in the media, contact us at glaad.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
10 Ways to Be an Ally & a FriendBe a listener.Be open-minded.Be willing to talk.Be inclusive and invite LGBT friends to hang out with your friends and family.Don't assume that all your friends and co-workers are straight. Someone close to you could be looking for support in their coming-out process.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Forsaken: A Rising Number of Homeless Gay Teens Are Being Cast Out by Religious Families

# data[].attributes.subject
The Forsaken: A Rising Number of Homeless Gay Teens Are Being Cast Out by Religious Families

# data[].attributes.body
"Highly religious parents are significantly more likely than their less-religious counterparts to reject their children for being gay – a finding that social-service workers believe goes a long way toward explaining why LGBT people make up roughly five percent of the youth population overall, but an estimated 40 percent of the homeless-youth population." I wouldn't have thought that religious based families helped contribute a significant amount to how many homeless individuals there were.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One late night at the end of her sophomore year of college, Jackie sat in her parked car and made a phone call that would forever change the course of her life. An attractive sorority girl with almond eyes and delicate dimples, she was the product of a charmed Boise, Idaho, upbringing: a father who worked in finance, a privateschool education, a pool in the backyard, all the advantages that an upper-middle-class suburban childhood can provide - along with all the expectations attendant to that privilege.

"There was a standard to meet," Jackie says. "And I had met that standard my whole life. I was a straight-A student, the president of every club, I was in every sport. I remember my first day of college, my parents came with me to register for classes, and they sat down with my adviser and said, 'So, what's the best way to get her into law school?'"

Jackie just followed her parents' lead understanding implicitly that discipline and structure went hand in hand with her family's devout Catholic beliefs. She attended Mass three times a week, volunteered as an altar server and was the fourth generation of her family to attend her Catholic school; her grandfather had helped tile the cathedral. "My junior year of high school, my parents thought it was weird that I'd never had a boyfriend," she says, "so I knew I was supposed to get one. And I did. It was all just a rational thought process. None of it was emotionally involved."

After graduating, Jackie attended nearby University of Idaho, where she rushed a sorority at her parents' prompting. She chose a triple major of which they approved. "I remember walking out of the sorority house to go to Walmart or something, and I stopped at the door and thought to myself, 'Should I tell someone I'm leaving?'" she says. "It was the first time in my life where I could just go somewhere and be my own person."

In fact, it took the freedom of college for Jackie to even realize who her "own person" was. "Growing up, I knew that I felt different, but when you grow up Catholic, you don't really know gay is an option," she says. "I grew up in a household that said 'fag' a lot. We called people 'fags,' or things were 'faggy.'" Her only sex-ed class was taught by a priest, and all she remembers him saying is, "'Don't masturbate and don't be gay.' I didn't know what those words meant, so I just hoped to God that I wasn't doing either of them."

When Jackie got to college, the "typical gay sorority encounters" she found herself having didn't seem to qualify as anything more than youthful exploration; she thought all girls drunkenly made out with their best friends. By her sophomore year, she was dating a fraternity brother but was also increasingly turned on by a friend she worked with at the campus women's center. "I was just playing it off as 'So maybe I'm just gay for you - I mean, I don't have to tell my boyfriend' kind of thing," she says. "I knew what I wanted, but it was never something I ever envisioned that I could have on a public level." And yet, as her friendship with this woman turned physical and their relationship grew more serious, Jackie saw her future shrinking before her: a heterosexual marriage, children, church and the knowledge that all of it was based on a lie. "I honestly thought my whole life I was just going to be an undercover gay," she says, shaking her head in disbelief.

For better or worse, that plan was never to be. Toward the end of her sophomore year, Jackie got a text message from one of her sorority sisters who said she'd been seen kissing another girl, after which certain sisters started making it clear that they were not comfortable around Jackie. ("You're living in the same house together," she says, "and, of course, to close-minded people, if somebody's gay, that means you're automatically interested in all 80 of them.") Eventually, she went before her chapter's executive board and became the first sorority girl at her college to ever come out, at which point she realized that if she didn't tell her parents, someone else would. "I was convinced somebody was going to blast it on Facebook."

So while Jackie hoped for the best, she knew the call she was making had the potential to not end well. "You can't hate me after I say this," she pleaded when, alarmed to be receiving a call in the middle of the night, her mom picked up the phone.

"Oh, my God, you're pregnant" was her mom's first response, before running through a litany of parental fears. "Are you in jail? Did you get expelled? Are you in trouble? What happened? What did you do?" Suddenly her mom's silence matched Jackie's own. "Oh, my God," she murmured in disbelief. "Are you gay?"

"Yeah," Jackie forced herself to say.

After what felt like an eternity, her mom finally responded. "I don't know what we could have done for God to have given us a fag as a child," she said before hanging up.

As soon as the line went dead, Jackie began sobbing. Still, she convinced herself that her parents would come around and accept her, despite what they perceived to be her flaw. As planned, she drove to Canada to celebrate her birthday with friends. When her debit card didn't work on the second day of the trip, she figured it was because she was in another country. Once back in the States, however, she got a call from her older brother. "He said, 'Mom and Dad don't want to talk to you, but I'm supposed to tell you what's going to happen,'" Jackie recalls. "And he's like, 'All your cards are going to be shut off, and Mom and Dad want you to take the car and drop it off at this specific location. Your phone's going to last for this much longer. They don't want you coming to the house, and you're not to contact them. You're not going to get any money from them. Nothing. And if you don't return the car, they're going to report it stolen.' And I'm just bawling. I hung up on him because I couldn't handle it." Her brother was so firm, so matter-of-fact, it was as if they already weren't family.

From that moment, Jackie knew that she was entirely on her own, that she had no home, no money and no family who would help her - and that this was the terrible price she'd pay for being a lesbian.

Jackie's story may be distinctive in its particulars, but across America, it is hardly unique. Research done by San Francisco State University's Family Acceptance Project, which studies and works to prevent health and mentalhealth risks facing LGBT youth, empirically confirms what common sense would imply to be true: Highly religious parents are significantly more likely than their less-religious counterparts to reject their children for being gay - a finding that social-service workers believe goes a long way toward explaining why LGBT people make up roughly five percent of the youth population overall, but an estimated 40 percent of the homeless-youth population. The Center for American Progress has reported that there are between 320,000 and 400,000 homeless LGBT youths in the United States. Meanwhile, as societal advancements have made being gay less stigmatized and gay people more visible - and as the Internet now allows kids to reach beyond their circumscribed social groups for acceptance and support - the average coming-out age has dropped from post-college age in the 1990s to around 16 today, which means that more and more kids are coming out while they're still economically reliant on their families. The resulting flood of kids who end up on the street, kicked out by parents whose religious beliefs often make them feel compelled to cast out their own offspring (one study estimates that up to 40 percent of LGBT homeless youth leave home due to family rejection), has been called a "hidden epidemic." Tragically, every step forward for the gay-rights movement creates a false hope of acceptance for certain youth, and therefore a swelling of the homeless-youth population.

"The summer that marriage equality passed in New York, we saw the number of homeless kids looking for shelter go up 40 percent," says Carl Siciliano, founder of the Ali Forney Center, the nation's largest organization dedicated to homeless LGBT youth. A former Benedictine monk-in-training, who once went by the nickname Baby Jesus, Siciliano had spent years living in monasteries and serving in shelters run by the Catholic Worker Movement before his own sexuality inextricably came between him and his institutional faith. "I ended up just feeling like the Catholic Church was wack," he says. "Cardinal O'Connor [the archbishop of New York at the time who once said if he was forced to hire homosexuals, he would shut down all of the Catholic schools and orphanages in the diocese] was like the arch-homophobe of America." Siciliano was working at a housing program for the homeless in the Nineties when he noticed that his clientele was getting younger and younger. Until then, he says, "you almost never saw kids. It was Vietnam vets, alcoholics and deinstitutionalized mentally ill people." But not only were more kids showing up, they were also disappearing. "Every couple of months one of our kids would get killed," Siciliano says. "And it would always be a gay kid." In 2002, he founded the Ali Forney Center, naming it after a homeless 22-year-old who'd been shot in the head on the street in Harlem, not far from where the organization's drop-in center currently resides. Siciliano had been close with Forney and felt that had he had a safe place to go, he might be alive today.

Since founding the center, Siciliano, 49, has become one of the nation's most outspoken homeless advocates. "I feel like the LGBT movement has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to this," he says, running his hands through his closely cropped hair and sighing. "We've been so focused on laws - changing the laws around marriage equality, changing 'don't ask, don't tell,' getting adoption rights - that we haven't been fighting for economic resources. How many tax dollars do gay people contribute? What percentage of tax dollars comes back to our gay kids? We haven't matured enough as a movement yet that we're looking at the economics of things."

Siciliano also understands that the kids he works with don't sync up with to the message everyone wants to hear: It gets better. "There is a psychological reality that when you're an oppressed group whose very existence is under attack, you need to create this narrative about how great it is to be what you are," he says. "It's like, 'Leave the repression and the fear behind and be embraced by this accepting community, and suddenly everyone is beautiful and has good bodies and great sex and beautiful furniture, and rah-rah-rah.' And, from day one of the Stonewall Riots, homeless kids were not what people wanted to see. No one wanted to see young people coming out and being cast into destitution. It didn't fit the narrative."

Jackie knew well what her parents thought of homosexuality, but she still held out hope that maybe over time her family would come around. With the last of her cash, she bought a bus ticket back to campus, where within a few weeks she defaulted on her rent. She started couch surfing and persuaded the women's center to let her work through the summer for $6 an hour, 10 hours a week. "I mean, it was crap money, but it was something," she says. "I didn't tell anybody the situation I was in. I didn't tell anybody I was hungry every day. I didn't tell them I didn't have a place to stay, because I thought this was my punishment for being gay and I deserved it." She'd ask friends to crash overnight, lying about being too drunk to go home. If that fell through, she'd spend nights in study rooms on campus. She found herself dating women simply to have a bed, which she admits was neither "healthy nor permanent."

In the upheaval that had suddenly become her daily existence, Jackie felt that she had to cling to something constant; she chose her education. The day after returning to campus, she went to the financialaid office to ask for the help she'd never before had to seek, appealing to the university to gain status as an independent student. Though she did eventually receive tuition assistance, Jackie says, "You're not meant to be homeless and a student. I learned really fast how to pretend to not be poor. I learned that if I had a couple of nice things to wear, nobody would notice that you wear them all the time. Or if you are a sociable person, people don't notice that you're never actually buying drinks. You just sort of figure it out."

She was soon taking any job she could get: on campus, in town, even picking up the odd construction shift. "I would do anything I could for money," she says. She finally pieced together enough funds to get a room in an apartment, but she couldn't afford furniture. To hide her penury, she never let anyone in her room. Even being around other gay people was sometimes difficult, a reminder that though "they had committed the same 'sin,' their parents loved them," she says. "They got to go home for the holidays. I had these moments when I would say, 'I did everything right. I excelled in all the right ways. So why me?' That hurt really bad. I mean, how do you explain to people that your parents chose not to parent you anymore?"

At times, it felt like more than Jackie could bear, and in these moments of doubt and despair she wrote her mother and father countless letters and e-mails begging them to be her parents again. "I wanted to take it all back so badly," she says. "I was just like, 'I'm sorry, I didn't mean any of it.'" They eventually responded: If she went to a conversion therapist and tried to be straight, they would at least help her financially. At first, she agreed. "But I couldn't do it," she says now, four years later, in a city hundreds of miles away from where she imagines her parents still live. "I wanted to be their kid, but I couldn't change. Everyone I'd ever known my whole life cut ties with me. But this was who I am."

Growing up in a small Midwestern town, the son of a divorced Latina who worked three jobs, James would have felt like an outsider even if it weren't for his sexuality. His hometown was the kind of all-American, cornfed place where "on every street corner you'd find a church" and where "the football players, if they knew you were gay, would call you a fag and tell you to suck their dick, or try to get you to bend over." Already sidelined for being a minority, James, 20, says he "was terrified of being branded the gay kid." In fact, he was so afraid that he suppressed an effervescent personality and kept to himself. When an openly gay classmate gave him a love letter, James was too scared to act on the impulses he'd felt for as long as he could remember. "So I just flipped out on him. I wasn't ready for that."

The same kind of fear kept James silent at home, where his mom cycled through religions: first Catholic, then Pentecostal ("die-hard Pentecostal"), then Jehovah's Witness, and then back to Catholic once she met James' stepfather. Though James never told his mom he liked other boys, her views on the matter were abundantly clear - "It was disgusting, sick, adding to the end of the world" - and she must have suspected. "At one point, and I was right there," he says, "my mom actually told this lady that she loved all of her children besides me."

Nevertheless, he worked up the courage to secretly start dating someone he'd met while waiting tables, and when he accidentally left his phone at home one day, his mom searched through it and found a picture of them kissing. "That was the day it really got serious," James says of the fallout with his family. "When I came home, she accused me of being a whore and told me I'd die of STDs. She made my brother move out of the room that we shared. I guess she thought it was a disease or something, that I would give him the gay. Like, I'd touch him and he'd automatically be gay."

Shortly after James graduated from high school, his mom told him that her home was not open to "people like you." He grabbed a bag and followed her orders. "I was like, 'I don't know how I'm going to do this, I don't know where I'm going,'" he says. "'But at some point, it has to get better.'" He decided to get as far from home as he could. "I hitchhiked - 18-wheelers, anybody who would give me a ride. I knew it was dangerous." He was in Florida before he felt like he'd gone far enough to stay put, though the only place he could find to sleep was an abandoned lot. "It used to be an old bus station," he says, shrugging. He lasted three penniless weeks alone there, collecting rainwater to drink and going hungry. "For the first week, you'll be like, 'I'm dying of hunger,' but after a while you don't feel it anymore." He finally got in touch with a friend who lived in Atlanta, and ended up staying in the friend's car until they heard about a shelter called Lost-n-Found Youth, which had been started specifically for the large influx of homeless LGBT kids who travel from the surrounding red states to one of the South's most liberal cities.

As James (who has asked me to change his name so he would not be identifiable to his family) is telling me this, he's covered in dust and plaster particles from renovation work on the rambling old Victorian that Lost-n-Found has been able to lease for $1 a year. One day, the house will be able to give shelter to 18 homeless youths - a day that cannot come nearly soon enough for Rick Westbrook, a kindly 51-year-old with a serious Southern drawl. Along with two friends, Westbrook started Lost-n-Found in a small but cozy home he rented using donated funds, after learning that LGBT youth were frequently being turned away at local shelters.

Westbrook, known to his charges as "Mama Rick," says this has been due to discrimination: In one survey, approximately one in five LGBT youth were unable to secure short-term shelter, and 16 percent could not get assistance with longer-term housing - figures that were almost double those of their non-LGBT peers. However, it's clear that funding is also a problem. The U.S. government spends more than $5 billion annually on homeless-assistance programs, yet federal laws allocate less than five percent to homeless children and youth specifically (though some money also makes its way to them through more generalized programs under agencies like HUD and the Department of Labor). Most of the dedicated funds are allocated through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA), which expired last September. "This is the first time it has not been reauthorized on time since 1988," says Gregory Lewis, executive director of Cyndi Lauper's True Colors Fund, who is working with Congress to ensure that RHYA will include a nondiscrimination clause. Currently, Lewis tells me, "there are no legal federal protections in place to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in RHYA programs." At one residential placement facility in Michigan, LGBT teens were made to wear orange jumpsuits to "warn" other residents about their sexuality.

Since 2002, when President George W. Bush issued an executive order that permitted faith-based organizations to receive federal support for social services, an increased amount of federal funding has gone to churches and religionaffiliated organizations where LGBT youth may not feel welcome. The biggest provider for homeless youth in the country is Covenant House, an organization based in New York and a shelter where LGBT teens have historically faced harassment. "The gay kids would routinely get bashed there," Siciliano tells me. "In the Nineties, one of the first kids I had go there came back and said he would never go back. When I asked why, he said they put him in a dorm with 14 kids, and when they went to bed, they gathered around and urinated on him to show how much they hated having a gay kid there."

Yet to have even landed a bed at Covenant would have taken some luck. In New York, a city with nearly 4,000 homeless youth, there are only around 350 spots in youth shelters, and less than a third of those spots are designated for LGBT kids, despite their disproportionate share of the homeless-youth population. (And considering that many homeless youth may not openly identify themselves as LGBT when seeking services, many providers believe that the estimate of 40 percent may be far too low.) Across the country, there are only 4,000 youth-shelter beds overall, while an estimate derived from the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children put the number of homeless minors at 1.7 million. "We've actually thought about creating a handbook: This is what to look for in a decent, abandoned building to stay in," says Westbrook ruefully. "If we don't have the space for them, as an activist, it's the next logical step: Give them information."

While reserving beds for LGBT youth might at first seem like segregation, providers have often found that it can be difficult to ensure a safe space otherwise - and that creating a safe space can have a very discernible effect. James' roommate Hannah (unlike most shelters, Lost-n-Found does not separate rooms by sex, making it much easier for trans kids to assimilate) was in and out of shelters all over the Atlanta area for more than three years after she was kicked out by a mother who had adopted her at age two because she'd always wanted a girl, and then rejected her when Hannah proved not girlie enough. "She read me Scripture about how people who have sexual sin would not enter the gates of heaven," Hannah, a zaftig AfricanAmerican, says, frowning. When that didn't seem to have an effect, "she takes a knife and puts it right here" - Hannah points to her neck - "and says she will kill me, that she hates me and regrets adopting me." Hannah was 20 and just back from a Job Corps training program when she found a policeman at her bedroom door telling her she had to leave, that her mom no longer wanted Hannah under her roof. Her stepfather gave her $20 on the way out. While driving her to a bus stop, the cop told her how sorry he was.

Over the next three years, Hannah cycled through shelter after shelter. The weeks, and sometimes months, when she couldn't find a bed, she slept on the street, often outside the Day Shelter for Women, where she could at least get warm meals and a shower, even if she also found maggots in her hair. Living like that, it was impossible to imagine going to a job interview, especially after she lost her birth certificate and high school diploma when a worker at a shelter accidentally cleaned out her locker. She sold pot to make money and considered prostitution, a way many homeless women she knew got by. "I was very tempted," she tells me. "Like, I had a guy say, 'I'll give you $100 if you do what I tell you to do.'" Hannah knew $100 was enough money to put herself up in a hotel for a couple of nights, but she says, "I could never see myself doing it."

It wasn't until she finally got off the waitlist at Lost-n-Found that Hannah began to see there might be a future for herself as a nonstraight woman - a revelation that Westbrook assures me is not uncommon. "Just in the two years we've been up and running," he says, "there've been several kids we've run into who have been through every single system in town, but for some reason, they did not thrive. Other caseworkers had told us, 'Good luck with him or her. We did all we could.' These kids are now either in college or in an apartment of their own. The minute you bring them into a program like ours, where they're with people like themselves, they don't feel like they're outnumbered, they don't feel oppressed. They blossom."

Hannah still sometimes feels like she's "burning in hell." She still wonders if "my life's always been horrible because I like girls." But since she started staying at Lost-n-Found, things have definitely shifted. She no longer sleeps with a knife under her pillow or worries about being kicked out of a shelter for her sexuality. She has a steady job with UPS, LGBT friends who accept her and a small safety net of savings to get her own apartment one day soon. "I'm not scared no more," she says. "I don't have to worry about people beating on me. It has been 100 percent better."

For LGBT kids who remain homeless, the stakes are clearly life and death. They are seven times more likely than their straight counterparts to be the victims of a crime, often a violent one. Studies have shown they are more than three times more likely to engage in survival sex - for which shelter is the payment more often than cash. They are more likely to lack access to medical care, more likely to attempt suicide, more likely to use hard drugs and more likely to be arrested for survival crimes. According to the Equity Project, leaving home because of family rejection is the single greatest predictor of involvement with the juvenile-justice system for LGBT youth. And for so many of these outcomes, the clock starts ticking the moment a kid hits the streets. "We know we have 24 to 48 hours to get to them before they do anything illegal - whether it's selling drugs, stealing or prostitution," says Westbrook. "It's a survival thing. In America, we lose six queer kids a day to the street. That's every four hours a queer kid dies, whether it be from freezing to death or getting the shit beat out of them or a drug overdose. This is our next real plague."

In fact, the ability to cope and handle homeless life may be significantly diminished in children who have grown up in very sheltered, religious environments. "It sounds so paradoxical, but the kid who's been abused and neglected from childhood, in this very perverse way, they're ready for the trauma that's to come on the streets," says Jim Theofelis, executive director of the Mockingbird Society, an advocacy organization for young people impacted by homelessness and the foster-care system, which does not always effectively screen for family acceptance before placing an LGBT youth. "But queer youth who grew up in a family where they were taken care of, and there was ice cream in the freezer at night, they face an extra challenge of really not being prepared for the culture of the streets or the foster-care system."

That so many once-coddled youth choose this lifestyle over remaining at home is a testament to how horrifying familial rejection can be - and a phenomenon youth advocates refer to as being not "kicked out" but rather "edged out." "The greatest gift my family ever gave me is driving me to the train station," says Luke, 20, a soft-spoken son of a Pentecostal preacher who grew up in a backwoods part of Tennessee so remote that the closest town had less than 2,000 people and was 20 miles away. His only neighbors were a great-aunt and great-uncle, and because he was home-schooled until the second grade, after which his education ceased altogether ("My family didn't approve of the things they taught at school, like science and sex ed"), he would go whole months at a time without seeing anyone outside of his family and the members of his church. He attended services at least three times a week, participating in faith healings and speaking in tongues. His dad performed exorcisms at home; once Luke realized that the feelings he had for men meant that he was gay, he was terrified that an exorcism would be performed on him. "It's their belief that they can see auras or tell when people are lying, so I was always scared that everyone would be able to figure out my sexuality that way," Luke says. "I prayed all the time that they wouldn't. It was all just demon possession. That's how they thought all gay people were, just possessed." When the issue of gay rights would come up on the radio, Luke's father would say in disgust, "They should gather all the gay people together and just kill them." When Luke finally worked up the nerve to come out to his mother, she told him, "If you want to live, don't tell your dad."

But by then, Luke wasn't sure he did want to live. He felt so depressed that he rarely left his room. He started having panic attacks. When a friend he'd made online told him that he couldn't possibly stay in his situation any longer, he knew it was true. But he also knew that he didn't have any skills, any education, any money or anywhere else to go. That's when his friend sent him a $300 train ticket to Portland, Oregon, and told him about a youth shelter called Outside In. Luke told his family he was leaving, and though they warned him about how scary it was in the outside world, they didn't stop him.

For Luke, the outside world has in fact been scary. During his three-day train ride to the West Coast, he barely left his seat except to change trains in Chicago, where Union Station was filled with more people than he'd ever seen in his life. Once he got to Portland and secured a shelter bed, he was so shy that he couldn't speak above a whisper. "There were a lot of heroin users, a lot of meth and weed," he says. "I was like, 'I don't know if I can do this, because I'm used to being around church people.'" Nevertheless, the time away from his family has helped him begin to accept the reality of his sexuality. "I'm free now, and I can be how I want, and that's not wrong at all. It's a struggle at times, but I'm getting there." On the day we spoke, Luke had been homeless for almost a year. "It's definitely been the best year of my life," he says.

On Palm Sunday this past April, Carl Siciliano wrote an open letter to Pope Francis that was published as a full-page ad in The New York Times. "Your Holiness," it began, "I write to you as a Roman Catholic, a former Benedictine monk and as a gay man who has spent over 30 years serving the homeless." It then went on to explain how the papal stance on homosexuality tears families apart and to beg the head of the church - which disregards biblical passages on atrocities like slavery and genocide - to see that the time has come to reconsider a teaching that yields "such a bitter harvest."

Of course, the bitter harvest begins long before a child ends up on the streets. When Ben, the youngest son of a Baptist minister from New Hampshire, asked his mother at age nine what the word "gay" meant, he didn't realize that the answer she gave would describe his own feelings - or that those feelings would, from that moment on, impact his emotional development. "She explained what it was and told me that it was an abomination," Ben tells me in the sunny group-therapy room at the Ali Forney Center, which he ran away to at age 17. "It was like telling a nine-year-old that they are broken. I remember being on the kitchen floor just crying, praying to God for him to make me normal. That's how I looked at it: 'If it's this bad for me to be this way, why did God make me? I wish I were dead.'" When Ben finally did come out to his parents at age 16, they sent him away to a Christian school across the country and began to explore reparative-therapy options, all of which reinforced the idea that he was terribly flawed, so much so that "the people closest to me thought I needed to be changed, fixed."

The problem is, running away, as Ben did, may deliver youth from their parents' judgment, but not from that of God - whom more than half of the youth I spoke with said they still believed in - and once on the street, the psychological trauma that's inherent in this deeply internalized shame often plays out to their detriment. And yet, as hard as it might be to imagine conservative faiths backing down from their demonization of homosexuality, it can be equally hard to get activists to address the issue. "LGBTadvocacy groups don't want to talk about religion," says Mitchell Gold, founder of Faith in America. "One, they don't want to come across as anti-religion. And two, they just aren't familiar with it. But the number-one hurdle to LGBT equality is religiousbased bigotry. The face of the gay-rights movement shouldn't be what I call '40-year-old well-moisturized couples.' The face of the gay-rights movement should be a 15-year-old kid that's been thrown out of his house and taught that he's a sinner."

Of course, even when it's a large factor, religion often isn't the only reason a child leaves home. Many stories include poverty, addiction and abuse; the intricate workings of a family's dynamic can be impossible for an outsider to understand or parse. But it becomes so natural to vilify parents who've abdicated their duties or alienated their kids that it is often forgotten how very hard it can be to change one's worldview in the face of deeply ingrained religious beliefs. "It's easy to see kids as victims and parents as perpetrators," says Caitlin Ryan of the Family Acceptance Project. "But most parents would not want to make a Sophie's choice between their faith and their child. These are parents who have been given misinformation for years."

Nevertheless, more than 40 percent of the agencies responding to the LGBT Homeless Youth Provider Survey do not offer services that address family conflict. When Child Services got involved with Ben's case, as the law requires of homeless minors, they initially wanted to send him home. And his parents wanted him back: Under their own roof, they would have been able to control his contact with the secular influences they felt were affecting his sexuality. Ben refused to return to that environment. He promised his social worker that he would only run away again - and that the next time, he'd know enough to stay under the radar.

In December 2013, Jackie finally graduated from college - not that she attended the ceremonies. "The only reason you walk during graduation is so people can watch you," she says. "But I had nobody to invite - and a cap and gown cost money - so I just took a shift at work instead."

As she's saying all this, Jackie, now 24, is slowly sipping a Pabst Blue Ribbon in the sort of pleasant dive you'd expect to find in Portland, the city she now calls home (the signs on the bathroom doors read BOTH and EITHER). Last week, the marriage-equality law went into effect in Oregon, and so it's a celebratory time, even for those like Jackie who know what disappointments faith in one's future can bring. Not long ago, she was in Ikea with her girlfriend, when, for the first time in years, she felt herself begin to come apart. "I never shed a tear after coming out, ever, but I always knew the mourning was going to come, and it did," she says. "When you stop stressing about food and having a roof over your head, you stress about normal things like wanting to be wanted, or wanting to be loved, or 'Damn, I wish I had a photo of myself from when I was a kid.'"

Jackie's girlfriend has helped her cope with the transition. Now that Jackie has a job training sexualassault advocates, she can enjoy the first adult relationship she's ever had, in which a stocked fridge and warm bed weren't wrapped up in it, marring the emotional aspects. And while she says it's strange, being with someone simply to be with them, she admits "there's a healing process in entering a consensual, healthy relationship that's based on love rather than need." It's not quite the same as having a family, but it's not like being alone either.

The evening's golden sunlight streams in through the bar's front window, washing the room in sepia tones. Jackie leans back in her chair. Wearing Ray-Bans, hair rakishly swooped to the side, she looks like any other educated, socially conscious Portland hipster. But for Jackie, poverty and abandonment are brands she'll carry for life. "I'll never look at a bed in the same way; I'll never look at food in the same way," she says. "Sometimes, I'll sit at a table with people I interact with on a daily basis and think, 'None of these people have an inkling of anything I've been through, and they never will.'"

Jackie doubts she'll ever speak to her family again, though it's still hard to think of holidays spent without them, of childhood stories that will remain untold, of the jarring lack of continuity between her existence then and now. "I spent the past four years paying for that one sentence I uttered," she says quietly. "People ask me all the time if I hate my parents for everything they've put me through, but I really don't. If anything, I just feel sad for them because I'm sure it hurts so bad to have chosen their religious values over their child. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, they suffered through it just as much as I did, just in different ways." She sighs and looks out the window to where the shadows will soon lengthen into night. "I think, in the long run, no one won."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Forsaken: Gay Teens Shunned by Their Religious Families

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One late night at the end of her sophomore year of college, Jackie sat in her parked car and made a phone call that would forever change the course of her life.

# data[].attributes.body
Another example of Religious Terrorism and one of New Zealand's worst mass shootings.
"Religious terrorism is a type of religious violence where terrorism is used as a tactic to achieve religious goals or which are influenced by religious identity." - Wikipedia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Christchurch mosque shootings - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All the latest news about Christchurch mosque shootings from the BBC

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows the main products that have pink tax connected with it. The main one is personal care ! While women have to pay over 2, 000 dollars a year more for "women" products it explains how this is effecting women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Money & Relationships
The pink tax refers to the trend where women pay more for the same products as men. If you've ever comparison-shopped in the deodorant aisle, you may have encountered a strange price disparity. Products like razors, toothbrushes, and even prescription drugs marketed towards women all tend to cost more, for no discernible reason other than the fact that they're pink.

It isn't just items you can pick up at the store that women pay more for, either. Women are often charged more for mortgages, car loans, and services like dry cleaning. Women also tend to receive less funding when starting a business. Across many industries, women pay more than men 42 percent of the time.

Compounded with the fact that women often make less than men, and their overall wealth is just 32 cents to every man's dollar, their purchasing power is greatly reduced.

Whether it's a trip to the store, or a major financial decision, it's critical to understand what you're really paying for - and if you're actually getting the deal you deserve. Keep reading for insights on the pink tax, or skip to the infographic below.

What Is the Pink Tax?

The pink tax refers to gender-based pricing, where women pay more for items marketed towards them, while comparable products marketed towards men are often cheaper. It does not usually refer to an actual tax placed on women's products. The exception to this is when talking about the sales tax placed on feminine hygiene products. This is because they are categorized as luxuries rather than necessities, which some argue should not be the case.

For example, if you were to pick up a men and women's razor in the personal care aisle at the store, The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs found that a pack of women's razors would cost an average of $8.90, while the men's would only cost $7.99. That's an 11 percent difference that adds up - and the pattern continues across more than just personal care products. The organization found that clothes, children's toys, and home care goods were more expensive, too. Across all products, women pay 7 percent more on average. This pricing disparity results in women paying $1,351 more every year for the same products as men.

The gendered pricing carries over to large ticket items as well. When shopping for cars and homes, women are more likely to pay more than men:

A study found that when women bought used cars, they were twice as likely to be quoted a higher price than men, and pay an average of 2 percentage points more.

Women of color pay even more, as their quotes averaged at 4 percentage points higher than white men.

When getting their cars repaired, a study at Northwestern found women are more likely to be quoted a higher price.

The mean mortgage interest rate is .4 percent higher for women, though some argue this is because women are less likely to compare mortgage prices.

Studies have found that women pay more for car insurance in 25 states.

Common Pink Tax Items

The study conducted by The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs analyzed 794 items across 35 product types, there are a number of items women often pay more for:

Children's items: On average, girls' clothing items cost 7 percent more. In addition, girls' accessories like helmets and toys like scooters and bikes cost 4 percent more than the boy versions.

Adult clothing: For comparable items like jeans and button-up shirts from the same manufacturers as men's clothing, women pay an average of 8 percent more.

Personal care: This is the industry with the highest markup for women's products, with products costing an average of 13 percent more. This includes items like razors, hair care, deodorant, and body wash.

Home health care: Products like braces, digestive medicine, and compression socks are 8 percent more expensive on average for women.

Services: Women pay more for dry cleaning and haircuts than men - even when they bring the same shirt or request a short haircut. The California Assembly's Office of Research found 64 percent of dry cleaners charged women more for an identical shirt and 40 percent more for short cuts. Other services susceptible to the pink tax include car insurance and repairs.

Why Do Women Pay More?

The reasons why women pay more for the same goods and services are as varied as the products and industries themselves. As with many issues of inequality, there are causes that are intentionally discriminatory, and others that are driven by precedent and profits.

Production differences: It's possible that in some instances products marketed towards women are more expensive because small changes in manufacturing, like color, require additional materials at a higher rate. Or if a product requires different materials, and is made at a slightly smaller scale, the cost of those additional materials may be distributed among fewer consumers, increasing the price.

Tariffs: Not all the responsibility of the pink tax falls on brands and manufacturers. Tariffs charged on the import of international goods are often higher on women's products. Most of the United States' apparel imports are gendered, and the average rate on women's clothing is 15.1 percent - while men's clothing is taxed at 11.9 percent.

Price sensitivity: Some manufacturers may find that women are less price-sensitive to their products than men. This means that they are more likely to purchase a product regardless of whether the price goes up or down. If this is the case, then companies will likely charge more for women's products simply because they can. The belief that women are less price-sensitive may be outdated, though. A recent study found that two-thirds of women were likely to use their phones in-store to compare prices, whereas only half of men would.

Don't Get Ripped Off by the Pink Tax

Understand that when you're buying something marketed for women, you may simply be paying for the packaging. If you're truly out for a wise purchase, be sure to comparison shop whenever possible. Check the ingredients of your body wash or deodorant, as they may be no different than the men's versions.

Remember that it can be hard to tell from packaging how much you're actually buying. Though two products may be the same price, one may contain less product - making it more expensive.

When considering a large purchase like a home or car, do your due diligence. Make sure you know the true value of the purchase you're making, and ask around to find the best rates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is the Pink Tax? Why Women Pay More For The Same Stuff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Money & Relationships The pink tax refers to the trend where women pay more for the same products as men. If you've ever comparison-shopped in the deodorant aisle, you may have encountered a strange price disparity. Products like razors, toothbrushes, and even prescription drugs marketed towards women all tend to cost more, for no discernible reason other than the fact that they're pink.

# data[].attributes.body
This article sums up the average amount of money women are wasting buying "Women" products. The article tells you what pink tax while also informing you on the money hole women deal with !

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's a sad fact: Even in 2019, women are at an economic disadvantage compared to men.

For example, women are consistently paid less than men for the same work. Currently, women make 80.5 cents for every dollar a man earns, a gender wage gap of 20 percent. For women of color, the gap is even wider.

Women are also often charged a higher interest rate for mortgage loans, despite their consistently higher credit ratings.

Plus, the United States is one of only two countries that doesn't mandate paid maternity leave. According to a report from the National Partnership for Women & Families, "a woman's income loss during pregnancy or parental leave can have significant and even devastating consequences for her family."

Women also have to deal with the pink tax.

What Is the Pink Tax?

The pink tax is the extra amount that women pay for everyday products like razors, shampoo, haircuts, clothes, dry cleaning, and more. This "tax" applies to items that span a woman's entire life, from girls toys and school uniforms to canes, braces, and adult diapers.

The prices on individual products may not seem that different - say, $3.79 vs $3.99 for deodorant - but over time, these little increases can add up.

The pink tax costs women roughly $2,135 per year

In fact, according to axthepinktax.com, the pink tax has cost a 30-year-old woman more than $40,000. A woman in her 60s will cough up nearly $82,000 in fees that men don't have to pay. Currently no federal law prohibits companies from charging different prices for identical items based on gender.

One particularly controversial part of the pink tax is known as the tampon tax, a fee women are charged for feminine hygiene products. Almost all U.S. states exempt non-luxury necessities like groceries and prescriptions, but all but ten charge tax on tampons and feminine pads - despite their necessity for most women.

Social media hashtags such as #genderpricing, #pinktax, and #AxThePinkTax have brought attention to the issue of gender-based pricing.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

What are Some Examples of the Pink Tax?

A 2015 study of gender-based pricing in New York City found these examples. Retailers often take pains to keep similar products with different prices separated so it's not easy to notice the difference.

On average, the study found that women's products cost 7 percent more than similar products for men, including 13 percent more for personal care products, 8 percent more for adult clothing, and 8 percent more for senior/home health care products.

This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

How Long Has the Pink Tax Existed?

Since at least the early 1990s - that's when California began to study the problem. A 1996 report from the state's Assembly Office of Research found that 64 percent of the stores in five major California cities charged a higher price to wash and dry clean a woman's blouse compared to a man's button-up shirt. "[These were] blatant examples of price discrimination based upon gender," Elise Thuraue, senior consultant to Assemblywoman Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, told the Palo Alto Weekly.

Based on the results of the study, California passed the state-wide Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, which says, in part, that "No business establishment of any kind whatsoever may discriminate, with respect to the price charged for services of similar or like kind, against a person because of the person's gender."

In 2013, Speier was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Three years later, she introduced a similar nation-wide bill to Congress. She reintroduced the bill banning the pink tax in 2019, but no official action has been taken.

How Do I Avoid Paying the Pink Tax?

The easiest way to avoid the pink tax is to comparison shop when you can. Check out the "men's" versions of razors, shampoo, and other personal care products. Browse men's basics like t-shirts, button-up shirts and socks-chances are, you'll pay less for products of similar, or better, quality.

Also be on the lookout for stores and companies that advertise that they're " Pink Tax Free " or offer unisex services.

What Brands Actively Fight the Pink Tax?

In 2016, the online wholesale company Boxed adjusted the prices of some of its personal care products to account for the pink tax. "Our team took a hard look at some of the products offered on Boxed and realized that many female products cost significantly more than their male equivalents," Boxed CEO and founder Chieh Huang told PRNewsire. "This just didn't make sense to our team, and [...] we immediately decided this was an issue we wanted to help bring to the forefront and take action." The company even created a "pink tax free" section of its website, listing all of the products, from tampons to body wash, that are discounted to gender neutral prices.

Shop Boxed's Pink Tax-Free Section

Billie, a subscription razor company, offers a referral discount that it calls The Pink Tax Rebate. "On behalf of the razor companies out there," the company says on its website, "We're sorry you've been overpaying for pink razors. It's time you got some money back."

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Have You Heard of the Pink Tax? If Not, Prepare to Be Outraged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The pink tax is the extra amount that women pay for everyday products like razors, shampoo, haircuts, clothes, dry cleaning, and more. This "tax" applies to items that span a woman's entire life, from girls toys and school uniforms to canes, braces, and adult diapers.

# data[].attributes.body
This website provides Pro's and Con's to the death penalty. There at the top of the website it gives you a brief discussion of why the death penalty is enforced. This statement about the death penalty sways my argument of if the death penalty is reasonable. "They argue that retribution or "eye for an eye” honors the victim, helps console grieving families, and ensures that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause future tragedy."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since 1977, one year after the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of the death penalty, more than 1,480 people have been executed, primarily by means of lethal injection. Most death penalty cases involve the execution of murderers although capital punishment can also be applied for treason, espionage, and other crimes.

Proponents of the death penalty say it is an important tool for preserving law and order, deters crime, and costs less than life imprisonment. They argue that retribution or "an eye for an eye" honors the victim, helps console grieving families, and ensures that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause future tragedy.

Opponents of capital punishment say it has no deterrent effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to take human life, and perpetuates social injustices by disproportionately targeting people of color (racist) and people who cannot afford good attorneys (classist). They say lifetime jail sentences are a more severe and less expensive punishment than death.

PROS & CONS BY CATEGORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Death Penalty - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The pros and cons of the death penalty debate include aguments for and against life imprisonment, crime deterrence, and methods like hanging.

# data[].attributes.headline
Human Trafficking Survivor and her heartbreaking story 

# data[].attributes.subject
Human Trafficking Survivor and her heartbreaking story 

# data[].attributes.body
Karla Jacinto, a human trafficking survivor,  says that she was lured from poverty in Mexico by a man that was nice to her. She spent four years in the human trafficking ring being forced to have 🤬 30 times a day, seven days a week. It is estimated that she was raped 43,200 times while there. She was 12 years old when she was forced  into the prostitution ring. When she thought that she would be saved by the police, the police officers threatened them with compromising pictures and told them to do everything they said. Later on, she gave birth at 15, and the baby was used as leverage by the pimps to keep her in the business. After four long years, she was finally rescued when she was 16.This needs to be stopped. People should not have to go through these traumatic experiences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
human trafficking survivor: i was raped 43

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Human trafficking survivor: I was raped 43,200 times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human trafficking survivor says she was was raped 43,200 times in four years.

# data[].attributes.headline
Racism and Discrimination in health care: Providers and patients

# data[].attributes.subject
Racism and Discrimination in health care: Providers and patients

# data[].attributes.body
Black and poc women feel more comfortable not having a white nurse or doctor-especially during pregnancies. Countless black women have shred their stories of miscarriages because it is told that black people feel less pain or no pain at all. There was a whole court case about this scenario that ended up with a black woman and her child dead because the doctors made her wait in pain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thanks for visiting. Don't miss your FREE gift.

The Best Diets for Cognitive Fitness, is yours absolutely FREE when you sign up to receive Health Alerts from Harvard Medical School

Sign up to get tips for living a healthy lifestyle, with ways to fight inflammation and improve cognitive health, plus the latest advances in preventative medicine, diet and exercise, pain relief, blood pressure and cholesterol management, and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Racism and discrimination in health care: Providers and patients - Harvard Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is sadly true that people of color cannot necessarily expect to receive the same quality of medical care in this country as whites. And unfortunately, discrimination by patients toward doctors is another problem that the medical community needs to address. To overcome the racism and discrimination that lead to ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Ice and Immigration: Biden vs Trump on Immigration

# data[].attributes.subject
Ice and Immigration: Biden vs Trump on Immigration

# data[].attributes.body
While I still hold to my belief that no one is illegal on stolen land, Biden and Trump's plans for immigration are very different.  Biden plans to roll back on many immigration laws that have been put in place these past few years (comparable to the Obama administration's laws), in hopes to reunite families at the border and free people from these cages. Although this plan seems perfect, it isn't exactly. This means that many drug kings, cartels, etc could easily get into the U.S. On the other hand, Trump's immigration plan consists of many executive orders regulating who comes in and out of the country to prevent drugs, terrorists, etc from entering the country, however he is using family separation at the border as a weapon to prevent this. This country was made to present new opportunities to people that have been strippped of their rights in their home countries. Everyone's ancestors (with the exception of people with Native American ancestry) came from somewhere elsewhere in hope of a new life and new opportunities, so why is it that we're taking away these opportunities from these people? People have the right to seek asylum in the United States, but instead are being seperated at the border and being held in cages like animals. We as the future generation must push for safer immigration laws, and continue to tank for better conditions for the future citizens of our country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump campaigned heavily on border security and immigration issues. He promised to build a border wall, rescind the Obama Administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and enforce America's immigration laws. Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because of his immigration promises.

While in office, President Trump has made many immigration changes to address caravans of illegal immigrants from Central America, terrorist travel to the U.S., asylum fraud, and more. Because the U.S. Congress has been unable and unwilling to pass meaningful immigration legislation for decades, the Trump Administration has made policy and operational changes through executive orders and regulatory revisions.

Candidate Joe Biden intends to roll back immigration changes made during the Trump Administration. This would make a Biden Administration look much like the Obama Administration on immigration matters. The following is a comparison of major immigration policies between President Trump's Administration and Joe Biden's campaign.

The Wall

Trump. The U.S.-Mexican border is nearly 2,000 miles long, 654 of which had a border barrier prior to the Trump Administration. Border Patrol agents have long said that border wall systems, along with personnel and technology, make their jobs easier to stop illegal immigration, drugs, and human smuggling from crossing our border between the ports of entry. The Trump Administration's goal was to build 450 to 500 miles of new wall by the end of 2020. As of October 2020, the Administration has completed over 350 miles of new wall system, including access roads, lighting, and sensors. With over 200 additional miles under construction and approximately 150 miles under pre-construction, the Administration appears to be on track to build 450 miles of new wall system by the end of 2020.

Biden. Joe Biden has stated he would not build another foot of border wall in his administration. According to his campaign website, a Biden Administration would stop using Department of Defense funding to build the wall. "Building a wall will do little to deter criminals and cartels seeking to exploit our borders," his website states. Biden claims that he would instead direct federal resources to smart border enforcement efforts like investments in improving screening infrastructure at our ports of entry. Rather than between the ports of entry, Biden has stated that "all the bad stuff is happening" at the ports of entry.

DACA

Note: It is important to note the difference between DACA recipients and "Dreamers."

DACA recipients are those who applied for and received DACA benefits from DHS and number approximately 825,000 people.

"Dreamers" are a broad label for anyone who came to the U.S. illegally by up to age 18 on the date a Dreamer bill would be enacted. This "Dreamer" population is estimated to be at least 3.6 million.

The population of illegal-alien parents in the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program is also estimated to number about 3.6 million. This means that half of all illegal aliens (11 million) living in the U.S. could receive amnesty via DACA or DAPA.

General Amnesty

The President's base of supporters do not agree with an amnesty of any size for illegal aliens. If he wins a second term, the pressure of satisfying the base for a reelection would be behind him. It is possible he would agree to an amnesty as part of a deal, but it is uncertain right now.

Biden. In contrast, the Biden campaign states that a Biden Administration would immediately and "aggressively advocate" for legislation to keep "families together by providing a roadmap to citizenship for nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants."

Illegal aliens who are living in the U.S. using stolen Social Security numbers would also likely receive this amnesty. Prosecutors and courts often turn a blind eye to illegal aliens using stolen Social Security numbers. As such, the offense would likely be waived as part of a Biden amnesty program.

Travel Restrictions

The President acted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which gives him the authority to "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens...or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate" when he determines that their entry "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States." The proclamation provides that the DHS will assess, on a continuing basis, whether those entry restrictions should be modified and report to the President every 180 days.

Biden. The Biden campaign website states the following on this subject:

Rescind the un-American travel and refugee bans, also referred to as "Muslim bans." The Trump Administration's anti-Muslim bias hurts our economy, betrays our values, and can serve as a powerful terrorist recruiting tool. Prohibiting Muslims from entering the country is morally wrong, and there is no intelligence or evidence that suggests it makes our nation more secure. It is yet another abuse of power by the Trump Administration designed to target primarily black and brown immigrants. Biden will immediately rescind the "Muslim bans."

Sanctuary Jurisdictions and ICE

President Trump issued an executive order on January 25, 2017, directing the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to "ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. §1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants." Opponents of the executive order filed multiple lawsuits against the Administration. Due to the conflicting opinions of the U.S. circuit courts of appeal and, with no U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Department of Justice is able to enforce the conditions against sanctuary jurisdictions in some parts of the country, but not others.

Biden. The Biden campaign makes no mention of sanctuary jurisdictions on its website. It does, however, discuss Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Under the heading, "Restore Sensible Enforcement Priorities," his website states:

Targeting people who have never been convicted of a serious criminal offense and who have lived, worked, and contributed to our economy and our communities for decades is the definition of counterproductive. Biden will direct enforcement efforts toward threats to public safety and national security, while ensuring that individuals are treated with the due process to which they are entitled and their human rights are protected. President Biden will end workplace raids to ensure that threats based on workers' status do not interfere with their ability to organize and improve their wages and working conditions. He will also protect sensitive locations from immigration enforcement actions. No one should be afraid to seek medical attention, go to school, their job, or their place of worship for fear of an immigration enforcement action.

In addition, a Biden Administration would "[e]nsure that ICE and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) personnel abide by professional standards and are held accountable for inhumane treatment. Biden will increase resources for training and demand transparency in and independent oversight over ICE and CBP's activities."

Asylum

Biden would dramatically increase U.S. government resources to support aliens awaiting assessment of their asylum claims and the network of organizations such as faith-based shelters, nongovernmental aid organizations, legal nonprofits, and refugee assistance agencies providing for their needs.

Refugees

The Trump Administration announced its termination of the CAM Parole program in an August 2017 Federal Register Notice for several reasons. The CAM Parole program was created outside the public-notice-and-comment Administrative Procedures Act process; it violated the definition of parole, which is only to be provided on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit; few applicants were found to be refugees; and the program required considerable resources.

Biden. If elected President, Biden would set the annual refugee admissions cap to 125,000, and seek to raise it over time "commensurate with our responsibility, our values, and the unprecedented global need." He would also revive the CAM program for children seeking to reunify with U.S. relatives, allowing them to apply for entry from their home countries, and expand efforts to register and process refugees in the Central American region for resettlement in the U.S. and other countries. Further, Biden would send humanitarian aid and assistance to Central American countries that are receiving refugees. His website states, "As a leader in the region, the U.S. has a responsibility to help our neighbors and partners process and support refugees and asylum seekers. This will also help relieve the pressure at our own border."

Public Charge Rule

Benefits not considered include emergency medical assistance; disaster relief; national school lunch programs; Women, Infants and Children nutrition program; Children's Health Insurance Program; foster care and adoption subsidies; government-subsidized student and mortgage loans; energy assistance; food pantries; homeless shelters; and Head Start.

The rule does not apply to humanitarian-based immigration programs for refugees, asylum seekers, victims of sex trafficking, or other special cases (such as victims of qualifying criminal activity, including domestic violence). It does not apply to aliens who serve in the U.S. military or to pregnant women and aliens under the age of 21 who receive Medicaid benefits. It also does not apply to Medicaid benefits paid for emergency medical or school-based services (such as provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). Additionally, if the DHS decides that an immigrant is not admissible because of the public charge rule, in limited circumstances, the DHS will offer the alien the opportunity to post a public bond.

Temporary Protected Status

Trump. The Trump Administration sought to return Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to its original intent, consistent with the law. TPS may be designated when a country experiences:

1. Ongoing armed conflict;

2. A natural disaster; or

3. There exist extraordinary and temporary conditions in the country that prevent nationals of the country from returning in safety.

Prior Administrations regularly extended and expanded TPS designations. The majority of the 10 countries with TPS designations at the beginning of the Trump Administration had designations, extensions, and expansions for at least 10 years. The countries with the longest designations were Honduras and Nicaragua, which were first designated by former Attorney General Janet Reno for devastation they experienced from Hurricane Mitch- in 1998.

These and other TPS countries have successfully lobbied past and current Administrations for extensions-showing their reliance on the benefit to boost their own economy, both in not having to receive their nationals back into their own weak economies, and more important, the remittances the TPS beneficiaries send back to their families in the home country. The Secretary of DHS, in consultation with the Secretary of State, decided to terminate TPS for six of the 10 countries with TPS: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan. The Administration has extended TPS for Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Biden. A Biden Administration would "order an immediate review of TPS for vulnerable populations who cannot find safety in their countries." The Biden campaign states that the Trump Administration's "politically-motivated decisions" to rescind protected status for these countries is a "recipe for disaster." Biden promises his administration would protect TPS and Deferred Enforced Departure holders from being returned to countries that are unsafe and offer them a path to citizenship through legislation.

Merit-based/Family-based Immigration and Diversity Visa

Trump. The Trump Administration's goal is to transition the U.S. immigration system from a predominantly family-based chain migration system to a more merit-based one. In an October 2017 letter to House and Senate Leaders, the President wrote how this should be accomplished:

End family-based chain migration as it currently exists by limiting family-based green cards to immediate family members (spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens), and replacing it with a merit-based system with a special emphasis on "skills and economic contributions" to the U.S. economy;

Establish a point system for green cards;

Eliminate the "visa lottery" (also known as the Diversity Visa) program, which provides 50,000 immigrant visas annually to random individuals from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States; and

Limit the number of refugees to "prevent the abuse of the generous U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and allow for effective assimilation of admitted refugees into the fabric of our society."

To qualify for a visa in the Diversity Visa Program, an applicant need only have either a high school education (or its equivalent) or at least two years of recent qualifying work experience. Importantly, the program is run as an annual lottery. In other words, 50,000 immigrants to our country are chosen by chance each year, rather than for needed skills or to reunify family.

The first three changes above would require legislative changes by Congress. Due to Congress' unwillingness to pass focused immigration legislation or to negotiate with the Trump Administration on immigration matters, a merit-based immigration system is a goal that would have to be pursued in a second presidential term. The Trump Administration has lowered the number of refugee admissions admitted to the U.S. each year, as discussed above.

Biden. Joe Biden not only disagrees with pursuing a merit-based immigration system, but would expand family-based chain migration. A Biden Administration would allow any approved family visa beneficiary, whose green card is not yet available due to the annual country cap, to receive a temporary visa and enter the U.S. anyway until the permanent visa ("green card") becomes available. In addition, Biden would support legislation that:

1. Expands the definition of "immediate relative" beyond spouses; minor, unmarried children; and parents of U.S. citizens to add spouses and children of green card holders, exempting them from caps; and

2. Allows parents to bring their minor children with them at the time they immigrate into the U.S.

Biden would continue the Diversity Visa program, stating it brings needed diversity. Biden's website states of President Trump:

He has disparaged the system as a 'horror show' and repeatedly misrepresents how the lottery is administered, while demonizing and insulting with racist overtones those who receive the visas. Diversity preferences are essential to preserving a robust and vibrant immigration system. As president, Biden will reaffirm our core values and preserve the critical role of diversity preferences to ensure immigrants everywhere have the chance to legally become U.S. citizens.

"High-Skilled" (H-1B) Visas

Employment-Based Permanent Visas

Trump. As part of its merit-based immigration request, the Trump Administration has recommended that the ratio of employment-based immigrant visas increase in relation to family-based visas. However, the Administration has not indicated support for increasing the total number of permanent visas.

With respect to providing science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) PhD graduates with green cards upon graduation, the Administration has not indicated support for such legislation. The Hire American philosophy discussed above for H-1B visas applies to permanent employment visas as well. The Administration has favored American STEM graduates in the context of the COVID-19 economic fallout by temporarily limiting foreign student and employment visas to prioritize American employment. It is unclear whether the Trump Administration would support providing green cards to foreign STEM PhD graduates upon graduation in a second term.

He would also exempt from any cap recent graduates of PhD programs in STEM fields in the U.S. According to his campaign website, Biden believes that foreign graduates of a U.S. doctoral program should be given a green card with their degree and that losing these highly trained workers to foreign economies is "a disservice to our own economic competitiveness."

Conclusion

The contrast between President Trump and Biden's immigration policies is stark. In a second term, President Trump would pursue merit-based immigration reform with Congress, navigate rescinding DACA while negotiating an amnesty with Congress (for anywhere from 800,000 to up to 11 million illegal aliens), and continue to secure the border in the face of strong COVID-economy immigration push factors. If Biden were to become President, he would return to many of the same immigration policies in place during the Obama Administration. This would include protecting and expanding the DACA program, admitting at least 125,000 refugees annually, and seeking amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens.
Lora Ries is Senior Research Fellow for Homeland Security in the Center for Technology Policy, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation does not endorse or oppose any candidate for public office.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
President Trump and Joe Biden: Comparing Immigration Policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump campaigned heavily on border security and immigration issues. He promised to build a border wall, rescind the Obama Administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and enforce America's immigration laws. Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because of his immigration promises.

# data[].attributes.body
The 545 children with missing parents still have not been reunited with their family members.  These kids have been separated from their parents as far back as June 2017, and have yet to be reunited. Trump's administration has not taken responsibility for this and has blamed it on the parents who brought their children into the facilities in the first place (to seek asylum or start a new life). The United States holds a 🤬 "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," however this is not fair for those who have left their home countries in search of a new place and a better life for themselves and generations to come.

# data[].attributes.body
Why're these people being denied their equality. It's unfair how women's equality is being denied. Most of these women do more for this country than men do. It's honestly sad how we can't give women what they want, when they've gave us what we've wanted for so many years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Equal Rights Amendment Denied Supreme Court Hearing for Now (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Equal Rights Amendment supporters won't get an immediate hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court as they fight to ensure the nearly 50-year-old proposition is added to the U.S. Constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
"In a world where we repost moral outrage without the necessary due diligance, it's important we read between the lines before we effectively "cancel" someone"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cancel Culture: The Good, The Bad, & Its Impact on Social Change - On Our Moon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Would we have cancel culture if we had justice culture?

# data[].attributes.body
Recently, Prop.14 has proposed authorizing the sale of $5.5 billion in bonds for stem cell treatment. This would allow researchers to immensely speed up the ongoing developments of stem cell treatments. There are, however, both pros and cons to this. On one hand, this would allow for the potential to find treatments for chronic diseases such as Parkinson's and cancer. Without this funding, medical discoveries in this field would be much more scarce. On the other hand, it would add a decent amount of debt to California, along with the fact that it is not guaranteed to work. Despite this, I believe this proposition is very important for the progression of medical science. Now would be a bad time to implement this as we should be focusing our money on Covid-19, but this would be a great allocation of money in the future as it could really save a lot of lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Proposition 14 would authorize the sale of $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, known as CIRM, for stem cell studies and trials.

Here is a rundown of the ballot measure:

The measure

In 2004, voters approved a bond measure to pay for stem cell research.

Now, with the money from that bond running out, supporters of the state's stem cell agency are asking taxpayers for a new infusion of cash.

With interest, the bond could cost the state $260 million per year, or $7.8 billion over the next 30 years, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.

Pro arguments

Proponents of Proposition 14 say the measure will help find new treatments and cures for chronic diseases and conditions, including cancers, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and heart disease. They say the previous bond advanced research and treatments for more than 75 diseases, including two cancer treatments for fatal blood disorders that were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Without new funding to keep the program going, supporters of Proposition 14 say, groundbreaking medical discoveries and lifesaving research will be slowed or stopped.

Anti arguments

Opponents say that the state shouldn't take on new debt while facing a pandemic-induced deficit and that medical advances attributed to the previous stem cell bond have been overstated. In addition, opponents say CIRM has been hampered by conflicts of interest and too little oversight, neither of which are remedied by the ballot measure.

The campaign to pass the 2004 ballot measure told voters that the bond would save millions of lives and cut healthcare costs by billions. Critics say that's not been the case to date, although supporters of this year's measure note that they never intended those results within 16 years. While there is not much organized opposition, some newspaper editorial boards, including those at the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle, have opposed it.

Reading list
With Prop. 14, California voters will be asked for more borrowing to keep stem cell research going Explaining Prop. 14 Times columnist George Skelton assesses Prop. 14 The California stem cell program's $5.5-billion funding request might be its downfall California's stem cell program faces an existential moment - and a chance for reform When it comes to disease, stem cells are a game-changer, scientists say. This is why

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prop. 14: Everything you need to know about the $5.5-billion stem cell measure

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proposition 14 would authorize the sale of $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, known as CIRM, for stem cell studies and trials. Here is a rundown of the ballot measure: In 2004, voters approved a bond measure to pay for stem cell research.

# data[].attributes.headline
Urgent: EARN IT Act introduced in House of Representatives

# data[].attributes.subject
Urgent: EARN IT Act introduced in House of Representatives

# data[].attributes.body
It is urgent that elected officials are notified of the distaste of the people. The bill violates our human rights and even violates act put in place to protest our privacy. Websites and apps will censor their platforms to better protect themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The dangerous EARN IT Act passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, and now it's been introduced in the House of Representatives.
Take Action Tell Congress to Reject the Earn It Act
We need your help to stop this anti-speech, anti-security bill. Email your elected officials in both chambers of Congress today and ask them to publicly oppose the EARN IT Act.

The EARN IT Act would allow all 50 state legislatures, as well as U.S. territories and Washington D.C., to pass laws that would regulate the Internet. By breaking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the EARN IT bill would allow small website owners to be sued or prosecuted under state laws, as long as the prosecution or lawsuit somehow related to crimes against children.

We know how websites will react to this. Once they face prosecution or lawsuits based on other peoples' speech, they'll monitor their users, and censor or shut down discussion forums.

The bill also creates an advisory commission on Internet "best practices" that will be dominated by Attorney General William Barr and law enforcement agencies. Barr's view on Internet "best practices" is well known- he wants to break encryption and let police read every message sent online.

Public outcry has already forced amendments into the EARN IT Act that purport to defend encryption-but they're full of loopholes. That window dressing doesn't fix the bill's many flaws.
Take Action Tell Congress to Reject the Earn It Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Urgent: EARN IT Act Introduced in House of Representatives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The dangerous EARN IT Act passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, and now it's been introduced in the House of Representatives.Take ActionTell Congress to Reject the Earn It ActWe need your help to stop this anti-speech, anti-security bill. Email your elected officials in both chambers of...

# data[].attributes.body
Some of the most common places where communities have seen human trafficking are gas stations, Facebook, and hotels. There are many different signs to look for when you think that you have encountered someone being trafficked. Some examples are increased online activity, child seems frightened, etc. Even though you might have never been in a situation where you have seen a trafficker, it is always good to know what to do in those situations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Three places that community members have spotted child trafficking situations include gas stations, hotels, and Facebook. Whether you have ever suspected a trafficking situation or not, it is important to be informed and prepared for what to do if you encounter it. There are many resources available to learn where trafficking happens, what the signs are and how to recognize them, how to report the tip, and how much information is necessary to report.

How to Identify Signs of a Trafficked Child

Although these are common places where trafficking occurs, the physical and behavioral signs and indicators can be recognized in other places as well. There are many resources that are great educators on the signs and indicators of a child being trafficked. We have listed some below.

Behavioral Signs (information found on missingkids.org)

Increased online activity

Child associates with new groups of online friends/older friends

Child avoids answering questions or lets others speak for him or her

Child appears frightened or resistant to law enforcement

Child lies about his or her age and identity

Child looks to others before answering questions

Child does not ask for help, does not self-identify as a victim

Child seems coached in talking to law enforcement

Physical Signs

Child has no identification (or ID is held by another person)

Child has large amounts of cash or pre-paid credit cards

Multiple children with unrelated adults

Child has sexual paraphernalia (such as bulk condoms or lubrication)

Evidence of travel (child is living out of suitcases, at motels, or in a car)

Child has a name or symbol tattooed or branded, child is reluctant to explain the tattoo, child's tattoo matches other children's tattoos

Child references traveling to other cities or states, may lack knowledge of their travel plans or current location

Child has hotel keys, hotel receipts or other items from hotel/motel

Presence of an overly controlling or abusive "boyfriend" or older female

Children recovered or picked up at hotels, truck stops, or strip clubs

Child has slips of paper with contact info and dollar amounts

Child has items or an appearance that does not fit his or her current situation (e.g., a homeless or runaway child who has money, electronics, new clothes or shoes, and who has his or her hair or nails done)

Child references online classified ads or escort websites

Child references traveling job opportunities (including modeling, singing and/or dancing in a music group or magazine sales crews)

Child has multiple cell phones and/or electronic devices

Child has unaddressed medical issues or who goes to the ER or clinic alone, or with an unrelated female

Other resources that discuss the signs of trafficking include but are not limited to:
What To Do

There are many steps you can take to be prepared if you witness or suspect any of these situations. You can always use the resources available to you as a community member, victim, or family member. According to the National Human Trafficking Hotline statistics, the number one type of callers on the hotline are community members. It is important that the community is aware of these potential situations and is willing to act when necessary. The following list explains steps you can take to be informed and prepared if you do see something suspicious:

1. Put the National Human Trafficking Hotline number in your phone. 1-888-373-7888.

2. If you suspect trafficking through something you saw on Facebook, they have a page dedicated to directing you to the correct resources and helping you handle the situation. Visit the page here.

3. Text BeFree to 233733 to use the Polaris textline. This can be used to report trafficking tips and talk with someone one-on-one. The textline is open from 3-11pm EST.

4. Call the National Human Trafficking Hotline. This hotline is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in more than 200 languages. You can anonymously report a tip. 1-888-373-7888.

5. Email the National Human Trafficking Hotline help@humantraffickinghotline.org.

The National Human Trafficking Hotline is one of the best resources to report trafficking tips, ask for help, get involved, get more information, and access crisis assistance. In any case, you only have to share as much information as you are comfortable providing. You can always report anonymously, and you do not have to share any identifying details about yourself if you do not wish to. If you do choose to share, none of your personal information will ever be shared without explicit permission, unless required by law. Visit the hotline's FAQ page here to learn more about the process.

All information is confidential, but the National Hotline will inform the authorities if there is child abuse or other danger involved that requires them to do so. Each tip is dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Every member in the community is essential to keeping our kids safe. By being informed of the signs and indicators of trafficked and abused children, we can utilize the resources around us to continue fighting against modern-day slavery.

What can YOU Do?
The three phases of trafficking are recruitment, grooming, and seasoning. Learn more about how to protect our children from sex trafficking in this blog post.
SHARE this article to spread the word.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 Places You Might See Trafficking, and What To Do About It - O.U.R. Stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Three places that community members have spotted child trafficking situations include gas stations, hotels, and Facebook. Whether you have ever suspected a trafficking situation or not, it is important to be informed and prepared for what to do if you encounter it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Black Lives Matter: From social media post to global movement

# data[].attributes.subject
Black Lives Matter: From social media post to global movement

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about how the movement of BLM has gotten more attention in the public eye. The article tells us how the leaders who have been moving people to march and take a stand for black people's rights, aren’t being given much attention, but it is the victims of police brutality that are getting the attention they deserve.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Lives Matter: From social media post to global movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black Lives Matter has sparked a hashtag, grass-roots organisations, and a collective of activists.

# data[].attributes.body
Roe V Wade was the court ruling that allowed abortion nation wide. Some people are concerned about this being overturned because of the new supreme court justice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abortion Before Roe v. Wade

Until the late 19th century, abortion was legal in the United States before "quickening," the point at which a woman could first feel movements of the fetus, typically around the fourth month of pregnancy.

Some of the early regulations related to abortion were enacted in the 1820s and 1830s and dealt with the sale of dangerous drugs that women used to induce abortions. Despite these regulations and the fact that the drugs sometimes proved fatal to women, they continued to be advertised and sold.

In the late 1850s, the newly established American Medical Association began calling for the criminalization of abortion, partly in an effort to eliminate doctors' competitors such as midwives and homeopaths.

Additionally, some nativists, alarmed by the country's growing population of immigrants, were anti-abortion because they feared declining birth rates among white, American-born, Protestant women.

In 1869, the Catholic Church banned abortion at any stage of pregnancy, while in 1873, Congress passed the Comstock law, which made it illegal to distribute contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs through the U.S. mail. By the 1880s, abortion was outlawed across most of the country.

During the 1960s, during the women's rights movement, court cases involving contraceptives laid the groundwork for Roe v. Wade.

In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law banning the distribution of birth control to married couples, ruling that the law violated their implied right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution. And in 1972, the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried adults.

Meanwhile, in 1970, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortion, although the law only applied to the state's residents. That same year, New York legalized abortion, with no residency requirement. By the time of Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion was also legally available in Alaska and Washington.

Jane Roe

In 1969, Norma McCorvey, a Texas woman in her early 20s, sought to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. McCorvey, who had grown up in difficult, impoverished circumstances, previously had given birth twice and given up both children for adoption. At the time of McCorvey's pregnancy in 1969 abortion was legal in Texas-but only for the purpose of saving a woman's life.

While American women with the financial means could obtain abortions by traveling to other countries where the procedure was safe and legal, or pay a large fee to a U.S. doctor willing to secretly perform an abortion, those options were out of reach to McCorvey and many other women.

As a result, some women resorted to illegal, dangerous, "back-alley" abortions or self-induced abortions. In the 1950s and 1960s, the estimated number of illegal abortions in the United States ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

After trying unsuccessfully to get an illegal abortion, McCorvey was referred to Texas attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, who were interested in challenging anti-abortion laws.

In court documents, McCorvey became known as "Jane Roe."

Henry Wade

In 1970, the attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of McCorvey and all the other women "who were or might become pregnant and want to consider all options," against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, where McCorvey lived.

Earlier, in 1964, Wade was in the national spotlight when he prosecuted Jack Ruby, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

Supreme Court Ruling

In June 1970, a Texas district court ruled that the state's abortion ban was illegal because it violated a constitutional right to privacy. Afterward, Wade declared he'd continue to prosecute doctors who performed abortions.

The case eventually was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, McCovey gave birth and put the child up for adoption.

On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texas law banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court declared that a woman's right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment.

The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother's health.

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman's health was in danger.

Legacy of Roe v. Wade

Norma McCorvey maintained a low profile following the court's decision, but in the 1980s she was active in the abortion rights movement.

However, in the mid-1990s, after becoming friends with the head of an anti-abortion group and converting to Catholicism, she turned into a vocal opponent of the procedure.

Since Roe v. Wade, many states imposed restrictions that weaken abortion rights, and Americans remain divided over support for a woman's right to choose an abortion.

In 1992, litigation against Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act reached the Supreme Court in a case called Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The court upheld the central ruling in Roe v. Wade but allowed states to pass more abortion restrictions as long as they did not pose an "undue burden."

Roe v. Wade Overturned

In 2022, the nation's highest court deliberated on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which regarded the constitutionality of a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Lower courts had ruled the law was unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade. Under Roe, states had been prohibited from banning abortions before around 23 weeks-when a fetus is considered able to survive outside a woman's womb.

In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Mississippi's law-and overturned Roe after its nearly 50 years as precedent.

Sources

Abortion in American History. The Atlantic.
High Court Rules Abortion Legal in First 3 Months. The New York Times.
Norma McCorvey. The Washington Post.
Sarah Weddington. .
When Abortion Was a Crime, Leslie J. Reagan. University of California Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Roe v. Wade: Decision, Summary & Background

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are smartphones really beneficial for little kids?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are smartphones really beneficial for little kids?

# data[].attributes.body
The internet can become a really cruel and dangerous place for little kids. Is it better to wait until they are older to give them access to the internet and social media and risk them getting hurt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Background

The risk of cell phone addiction is a social and psychological problem which has been proposed by psychologists, psychiatrists, and educational supervisors. The present study aimed to investigate the behavior of mobile phone addicts and mental health of university students of Shahrekord, Iran.

Methods

This study was an applied research survey for the purposes of this study. The study population ýconsisted of all the students of Payame Noor University, Islamic Azad University, and University of Medical Sciences. The study population consisted of 296 students who were randomly selected from the target population. To collect data, two types of questionnaires were used, the Symptom Checklist-90-R(SCL-90-R) questionnaire, and the 32-point scale questionnaire of behavior associated with ýmobile phone use (Hooper and Zhou, 2007). Data analysis was performed using SPSS software, statistical analysis, frequency distribution, mean, one-way ANOVA, chi-square, and LSD (Least significance difference).

Findings

The results showed that university students of Shahrekord, based on the six categories of mobile ýaddiction behaviors, were mostly placed in habitual behaviors (21.49%), addiction (21.49%), and intentional (21.49%) categories. By reviewing mental health indicators, it was found that students were affected with depressive disorder (17.30%), obsessive compulsive disorder (14.20%), and interpersonal sensitivity (13.80%). The results showed that there was a significant inverse relationship ýbetween mental health and habitual behaviors (r = -0.417), dependence (r = -0.317), addiction (r = -0.330), and incontinence (r = -0.309) in using mobile phone (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Survey results showed that with increased and improved mental health, the student's rate of cell phone addiction reduced.

Keywords: Mental health, Cell phone, Addiction, Behavior, University

Introduction

The current era can be known as a combination of information and communication. Today, in possession of advanced information and communication technology, we are able to establish connections and exchange information faster than before. 1 The most dominant type of information and communication technology is the mobile phone, the use of which in the past few years, due to social impact, has grown substantially. Mobile phone addiction, as a mental impairment resulting from modern technology, has come to the attention of psychologists, sociologists, and scholars of education. Troubled mobile phone use can be accounted a form of technological addiction.

Many mobile phone addicts are people with low self-esteem and poor social relationships; thus, they think they should be in constant contact with others. Mobile phone silence can lead to anxiety, irritability, sleep disturbances, shaking, insomnia, and digestive problems. 2 From the perspective of Thomee et al. problematic and overuse of mobile phones is associated with anxiety, insomnia, depression, psychological distress, and unhealthy lifestyle. 3 The emotional attachment to mobile phones for their users is in a way that makes them believe they cannot live without a cell phone. Researches have presented the negative impact of excessive use of mobile phones on physical and mental health of students. 4 Medical research on the effects of mobile phone indicates that this means of communication does not act in order to maintain the health of its users. For example, results of a number of studies show that mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene regulation, auditory and visual problems, increased pressure of acid on the cornea and lens tissue, headache, heat sensation in the ears, memory loss, and fatigue. 5- 9 Studies also showed that prolonged use of cell phones cause brain tumors. 10 In terms of psychology, communication technology reduces social relations and the welfare of the individual due to loneliness, depression, and isolation. Beydokhti ýet al. found that among adults and young people, the use of information and communication technology can lead to social anxiety and sleep disorders. 11

From these contents it can be concluded that there is a relationship between addiction to mobile phones and physical and psychological health. In fact mental health includes behaving in harmony with the community, acceptance of social reality and the ability to cope with them, and satisfying one's needs moderatly. 12 Mental health according to the World Health Organization is a health condition in which a person knows their own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, is fruitful for the community, and is able to make decisions and collective participation. Therefore, mental health is the base for welfare and health for individuals and society.

Hooper ýand Zhou, psychologists from Staffordshire University, studied 106 people who had used ýmobile phones, and found that 16.00% of them have behavioral problems. Their research concluded that behavioral problems followed by the addiction to cell phone use causes stress. 12 Despite the importance of mobile phones in everyday life, research indicated that some people use this device uncontrollably and this has affected their personal lives. 13 Review of research literature on the subject indicated that excessive use of mobile phones is a form of technology addiction. Results of the study by Hooper and Zhou showed that the rate of mobile phone use among university students is very high. 12 There is a relatively high number of evidence for mandatory, voluntary, or dependent use of cell ýphones; however, habitual, compulsive, and addictive behaviors of mobile phone use are relatively ýless observed.

The findings of Shambare et al. showed that mobile phone use was mostly addictive, habitual, and dependent. 14 The study of Ahmed et al. showed that a small number, less than 18.50%, of Pakistani students displayed mobile-related addictive behaviors. In this study the targeted subjects used mobile phones under reasonable conditions, and thus, did not have the tendency for addictive behaviors in mobile phone use. 15 The results of several studies showed that addiction to text messages has a relationship with students' social anxiety and nervousness, and personality traits of extraversion and neuroticism. Furthermore, the rate of addiction to text messages in different educational groups of students were different. 1, 11, 16

Moreover, other studies showed a positive correlation between depression and anxiety and the amount of sent text messages in a day, and loss of control and social anxiety. 17, 18 Chen examined the relationship between depression and mobile phone addiction on 519 American students and concluded that there was a significant association between mobile phone addiction symptoms (distraction, withdrawal, and escape) and depression. In addition, he stated that women had significantly higher rates of mobile phone addiction symptoms compared to men. 19

Technology addiction in general and dependency on cell phones in particular are important for several reasons. Despite the advantages and necessity of technologies for human society, due to their stimulating factors, they results in excessive use and lead to addiction. Young people are more vulnerable to excessive phone use, and thus, become phone dependent. 20 Young people's mental health, addiction to mobile phones, as a driving force, and an active community is major topics that are discussed in psychology and sociology. The present study addressed the question of whether there is any relationship between the amount and type of cell phone addiction and mental health status of university students in Shahrekord, Iran.

Methods

Due to the purpose of this study, this research was an applied research survey. The study population consisted of all students in different universities of Shahrekord (Islamic Azad University, Payame Noor University, and University of Medical Sciences). From among the target population, 296 subjects were randomly selected. Two types of questionnaires were used to collect data that include the Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R) questionnaire, and 32-point scale questionnaire of behavior associated with mobile phone use (Hooper and Zhou, 2007). 12 The SCL-90-R questionnaire has been used in many researches in Iran and outside Iran, and has a high reliability. 12, 21- 23 The validity and reliability of the mobile phone use questionnaire in some researches was at a high level. 13, 19 In order to analyze the collected data, SPSS for Windows (version 18, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used. The Pearson correlation analysis, Student's independent t-test, and chi-square test were used for data analysis. From the total of 296 students who participated in the study, 57.10% were men, 49.90% were female, 14.90% were single, 85.10% were married, 34.80% were living in a dormitory, and 65.20% lived elsewhere. Moreover, 50.30% studied in public Universities of Medical Sciences, 32.80% studied in Payame Noor University, and 16.90% enrolled in Islamic Azad University.

Results

Based on the results of , the majority of students, according to the categories of addictive behaviors of mobile phone, were placed in the three categories of habitual behaviors (21.49%), voluntary behaviors (21.49%), and dependent behaviors (21.49%). Based on the results of , students, with regard to mental health, had higher rates of depression (17.30%), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) (14.20%), and interpersonal sensitivity (13.80%). Results showed that with confidence interval of 0.99 and P < 0.001, there was a relationship between mental health and four out of six categories of mobile phone addiction (habitual behaviors, dependent behaviors, addictive behaviors, and involuntary behaviors). In fact, only at the level of voluntary and compulsive behaviors there was no significant relationship with students' mental health. The results showed that with confidence interval of 0.99 and P < 0.001, there was a significant negative relationship between mental health and general behavior of addiction to mobile phones. This means that as the rate of mobile addiction becomes less, the students' mental health increases. presented phone addictive behaviors that have a significant relationship with mental health. Based on these results, mental health of university students of Shahrekord did not differ according to demographic factors (gender, type of university, type of residence, education, and marital status).

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Discussion

The results of this study showed that university students of Shahrekord, based on the six categories of mobile phone addictive behaviors, were mostly placed in categories of habitual, voluntary, and dependent behaviors with 20.30%. These finding were consistent with results of several studies. 12, 17- 20 As was noted in the findings section, there was a significant inverse relationship between mobile phone addiction and mental health. Findings show that the highest correlation was related to mental health and habitual behaviors. Habitual behaviors refer to behaviors that are formed from habit, without hesitation, thought, and mental awareness in order to achieve a particular purpose. 17 Students who suffer from lower mental health, usually when faced with a challenge, a problem, or an assignment or a specific purpose, feel helpless, frustrated, and powerless. As a result, to counteract these negative feelings, they turn to their previous habits involuntarily and automatically, such as mobile phone contacts, and with this they reduce their anxiety and worry due to their inefficiencies. It was observed that after habitual behaviors, addictions and dependent behaviors have the highest negative correlation with mental disorder. One of the most important causes of this serious relationship probably depends on the nature of addictive and dependent behaviors. Addictive behavior refers to a sudden and involuntary tendency to do a particular act or behavior, in the state of psychological imbalance, and the main factors that drive this conflict and psychological imbalance are irrational negative, inner thoughts. 12, 21- 23 Hence, it seems that students with lower mental health and psychological balance, are more vulnerable to addictive mobile phones use, because they try to reduce their internal tensions by talking to others. On the other hand, students who had average and high mental health levels also had some types of addiction to mobile phones (habitual addiction). This could be related to excessive use of mobile phones for long-distance calls to family members. Another factor is the lack of entertainment and addiction to entertainment and games that are available on mobile phones. Factors such as jealousy, personality characteristics, the presence or absence of metacognitive skills such as self-regulation skills, and financial considerations could be other factors for the usage or non-usage of cell phones. 21- 23 Further research on the relationship between these factors and mobile phone addiction is recommended.

The results showed that between mental health and addictive behaviors toward mobile phones there was a significant inverse relationship in the categories of dependent, involuntary, and addiction behaviors. In other words, in higher mental health, human behavior is more rational, and the amount of cell phone addiction reduces. These findings were consistent with results from a number of studies such as Thomee et al., 3 Chen, 19 Billieux et al., 17 Park et al., 18Hassanzadeh and Rezaei, 1 Golmohammadian and Yaseminejad, 24 and Seyed Ali. 25 Research results indicate that there is a relationship between addiction to mobile phone and mental health in dimensions of behavioral problems, anxiety, depression, and psychosis. In addition, the results showed that there was no relationship between the occurrence of behaviors of cell phone addiction and gender, type of residence, type of university, and the study filed. These findings were consistent with results of Koo and Park, 26 Pawlowska and Potembska, 27 Wei, 28 and Wilska, 29 and domestic research, including Zamani et al. 21- 23 The investigation showed that there was a relationship between mobile phone addictive behavior and gender-related factors. Furthermore, there was a relationship between habitual behaviors of mobile phone use and marital status, addictive behaviors, and university. However, the results indicated that there was no significant relationship between mental health and gender, marital status, type of residence, university, and field of study.

Conclusion

Survey results showed that with increased and improved mental health, the rates of students' addiction to mobile phones reduced. Hence, it is necessary to take more steps in developing recreational programs for students' leisure time to maintain students' mental health, and thereby decrease addiction to a variety of new digital media such as the Internet, chat rooms, computer games, and mobile phones. Therefore, it is necessary that the university authorities and higher education institutions develop training programs, and make efforts to maintain physical and mental health of students.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all students in different universities of Shahrekord for their collaboration in this research.

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest

The Authors have no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

3. Thomee S, Harenstam A, Hagberg M. Mobile phone use and stress, sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression among young adults--a prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:66. [[ PMC free article] [ PubMed] Google Scholar]

5. Zhao TY, Zou SP, Knapp PE. Exposure to cell phone radiation up-regulates apoptosis genes in primary cultures of neurons and astrocytes. Neurosci Lett. 2007;412(1):34-8. [[ PMC free article] [ PubMed] Google Scholar]

12. Hooper V, Zhou Y. Addictive, dependent, compulsive? A study of mobile phone usage.. Proceeding of the 20th Bled conference emergence: Merging and Emerging Technologies, Processes, and Institutions; 2007, June 4-6; Bled, Slovenia.. [ Google Scholar]

14. Shambare R, Rugimbana R, Zhowa T. Are mobile phones the 21[ st century addiction? African Journal of Business Management. 2012;6(2):573-7. Google Scholar]

18. Park N, Hwang Y, Huh E. Exploring problematic mobile phone use: relationships between adolescents? Characteristics and Mobile Phone Addiction [Online]. 2010. [2010 Jun 21]. Available from: URL: http://citation.allacademic.

23. Zamani E, Abedini Y, Kheradmand A. Internet addiction based on personality characteristics of high school students in Kerman, Iran. Addict Health. 2011;3(3-4):85-91. [[ PMC free article] [ PubMed] Google Scholar]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Relationship between Mental Health and Addiction to Mobile Phones among University Students of Shahrekord, Iran

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The risk of cell phone addiction is a social and psychological problem which has been proposed by psychologists, psychiatrists, and educational supervisors. The present study aimed to investigate the behavior of mobile phone addicts and mental health of university students of Shahrekord, Iran. This study was an applied research survey for the purposes of this study.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers should be telling their students about this already. It's crazy how some students don't even know about this amendment. I didn't even know about EQA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BELOIT-Three area social studies teachers who attended a workshop at Harvard Business School during the summer of 2019 will give a presentation on the history behind the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) on Saturday.

The presentation will be at 10 a.m. at the Beloit Public Library, or it can be viewed online through Go To Meeting. Only 15 people will be allowed to attend the in-person presentation at the library and they must register at the library, according to Deb Fallon, chair of the League of Women Voters membership committee.

Frank Crivello, of Clinton High School, will be presenting as well as Beloit Memorial High School teachers Matt Flynn and James Hoey. They will discuss democracy and women's rights in America, teaching the lesson like they would do in a classroom.

The teachers will use the methodology they learned about from Harvard, Fallon said.

Crivello, Flynn and Hoey were awarded an all-expense trip to Boston in August of 2019 through the Harvard Business School after writing an essay and doing a phone interview.

The workshop was part of the Harvard Case Method Project of Teaching History, with the goal of making history come alive for students. The workshop taught educators how to use real case studies of incidents in history to engage students and produce an increased interest in voting, political engagement and constructive debate. Although the case students were first used in the business school, educators are using them more in liberal arts education as well.

Flynn said the presentation for Beloit was originally scheduled for last spring, but then COVID hit.

"The League decided they wanted us to look at the Equal Rights Amendment case which focuses on the rights of women from colonial times through the 20th Century. It is especially relevant this year with the 100 year anniversary of the 19th Amendment and the presidential election," Flynn said.

Flynn said he, Hoey and Crivello all held case studies with students last year in class and had wonderful discussions.

"We are predicting the case study with community members will go just as well and help promote civic engagement throughout the community," Flynn said.

The Equal Rights Amendment would ensure equal rights for all Americans regardless of gender. It needs to be ratified by 38 states to become a part of the U.S. Constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teachers to present on Equal Rights Amendment on Oct. 31

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BELOIT-Three area social studies teachers who attended a workshop at Harvard Business School during the summer of 2019 will give a presentation on the history behind the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) on Saturday. The presentation will be at 10 a.m. at the Beloit Public Library, or it can be viewed online through Go To Meeting.

# data[].attributes.headline
White Supremacy and its Connections with Domestic Terrorism

# data[].attributes.subject
White Supremacy and its Connections with Domestic Terrorism

# data[].attributes.body
Back in 2019, a white nationalist targeted people of Latinx decent in a mass shooting at an El Paso walmart. This is only one example of racially motivated violence from the last 3 years alone. Racism and xenophobia in a country as diverse and large as the United States is something that is unavoidable. Domestic terrorism is the act of harming someone from the same country, or with the same citizenship as the actor because of a defining difference between the two. As the country continues to debate about racism, terrorism, and many other topics that separate us the issues being debated continue to grow and develop. As stated in the article, white supremacy is the leader factor in domestic terrorism. As this statement continues to confirm itself, many people disagree and say that white supremacy isn't an issue. How amusing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tucker Carlson would like you to know that white supremacy is "not a real problem in America."

Four days after a white nationalist targeted Latinos in a mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso - and three weeks after the director of the FBI confirmed that white supremacist ideology is the leading driver of domestic terrorism in the U.S. - the Fox News host assured his viewers that white supremacy was a "hoax."

"The combined membership of every white supremacist organization in this country would be able to fit inside a college football stadium," Carlson observed. "This is a hoax. Just like the Russia hoax. It's a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power."

It's worth noting that college football stadiums seat tens of thousands of people; the University of Michigan's has room for 107, 601. "White supremacists are not a real problem because there are only tens of thousands of them" would be an odd argument for anyone to make. But it's especially suspect coming from a prime-time news anchor who has devoted entire segments to the perils of MS-13, antifa, and "gypsies" who defecate in the street.

That said, Carlson has a scintilla of a point, one that the Federalist's David Marcus makes a bit less demagogically: White supremacy may be a leading driver of domestic terrorism, but domestic terrorism is a marginal evil in American society. In the 18 years since 9/11, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have claimed the lives of 229 Americans - roughly the number who die as a result of texting while driving every four weeks. Of course, spectacular acts of mass violence take a toll on civil society. But then, so do heavy-handed attempts to prevent them. If Carlson's argument had been that the scale of the white supremacist terror threat does not justify an expansion of domestic surveillance, his stance would be hypocritical, but not self-evidently wrong.

But Carlson isn't downplaying the threat of domestic terrorism out of concern for preserving Americans' civil liberties; he's doing so out of desire to defend the right of the president (and himself) to carry on describing asylum seekers as invaders, immigrants as "infesting" insects, and migrant caravans as a Soros-orchestrated plot to irrevocably rig our democracy against real Americans.

This is the animating grievance of both Carlson's monologue, and Marcus's Federalist column: to make white supremacy seem like a bigger threat than it actually is, the left is cynically (and absurdly) accusing Donald Trump of being a white supremacist.

It is true that our president has never (explicitly) endorsed the forced relocation of nonwhite Americans, the creation of white ethno-state, pogroms, or a revival of laws against interracial marriage. Trump is not an avowed white nationalist, let alone terrorist one. He is something much more dangerous than that.

Most white nationalist terror groups know that a "race war" isn't built in a day. The movement's immediate goals are to increase the salience and intensity of white racial identity in the United States, while simultaneously discrediting and delegitimizing the U.S. government in the eyes of white Americans. And Donald Trump has done more to advance those aims with his bully pulpit than any psychopathic "shitposter" has ever done with an AK-47.

As Carlson correctly observes, there is no mass base for violent white nationalism in the United States. There is, however, such a base for the Republican Party. Lone-wolf terrorists will never win many converts to white nationalism by committing mass murders at garlic festivals. But a GOP president can persuade a great many white Americans to trust their anxieties about demographic change - and to consider Hispanic immigrants a threat to their nation and way of life - by informing them that such "invaders" are infesting our country and changing its culture. Similarly, the Oklahoma City bombing was never going to persuade a critical mass of Americans that their government was illegitimate. But a Republican president willing to accuse his political rivals of shepherding "illegal immigrants" to the polls - or a cable news host willing to accuse the Democratic Party of orchestrating a coup, using migrants as its shock troops - just might.

By now, the overlap between the ideology articulated in Trump's tweets or Carlson's monologues, and that promulgated in white nationalist manifestos, has been widely observed. Given the power of willful amnesia in the contemporary U.S., however, it is worth recounting how far these men and their allies have gone. Trump has warned that Democrats "want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they are, to pour in and infest our Country, like MS-13" because liberals "view them as potential voters." Last fall, he insisted that the formation of a migrant caravan "didn't just happen," and that "the Democrats had something to do with it." Republican congressman Matt Gaetz suggested that such migrants had been paid - possibly by George Soros - to " storm the US border @ election time." Conservative commentator Erick Erickson made the same point less equivocally, tweeting, "It is not a coincidence that this caravan to the south of us is happening 2 weeks before our federal elections."

Around the same time, Carlson warned his viewers that Democrats were plotting a coup: By flooding the U.S. with "illegals," then granting them amnesty en masse, the party hoped to make it impossible for genuine Americans to ever reclaim their government through democratic means.

White nationalist rhetoric on Fox News from Tucker Carlson:

Democrats "are plotting, in effect, a coup" through immigration pic.twitter.com/7sh7IQFO83
- Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) July 6, 2018

Trump has repeatedly suggested that all may already be lost; in his telling, millions of illegal votes were cast and counted in the last two federal elections. (Which is why the "invasion" at our southern border poses such an existential threat to our nation's survival.)

Through all this, Fox News' daytime anchors vigorously affirmed the president's claim that Central Americans asserting their legal right to seek asylum were committing an act of war.

"The caravan is an invasion and an act of war" -Legal immigrant Amapola Hansberger pic.twitter.com/CKheXo8ALB
- FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) October 22, 2018

"It is a full-scale invasion by a hostile force" -@michellemalkin reacts to the migrant caravan, and discusses the need for the border wall pic.twitter.com/ZrPTNbqBjI
- FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) October 26, 2018

Months later, the president informed Sean Hannity that legal limitations on the government's authority to use violence against migrants were undermining efforts to beat back this existential threat to America's survival.

"Now we are capturing these people," Trump said. "We are getting them but we don't do it like other countries. Other countries stand there with machine guns, ready to fire."

The president clarified that he "wouldn't want to do that" - but immediately added, "It's a very effective way of doing it."

In sum, the president and his mainstream, conservative allies have been telling millions of Americans that:

* The (Soros-funded) Democrats are orchestrating an invasion of the United States by Latino immigrants, so as to replace the traditional American electorate with one more predisposed to socialist tyranny.

* If they succeed, the America we know and love will be irrevocably lost.

* The most effective way to beat back this "act of war" would be to open machine-gun fire on the invaders, but laws do not allow our military to do so.

Nothing that transpired in El Paso, Gilroy, or Pittsburgh has caused Trump or his Fox News brethren to rethink their rhetoric. As the New York Times reported Tuesday:

The Trump campaign was unapologetic on Tuesday about a New York Times report on its Facebook advertisements that use the word "invasion," which featured prominently in the El Paso suspect's manifesto. A senior Trump political adviser had a single-word answer - "no" - when asked if the campaign would change the tenor of its ads.

Tim Murtaugh, a Trump campaign spokesman, defended the ads.

"At any given moment, there are 100,000 migrants making their way through Mexico to attempt to break our immigration laws," Mr. Murtaugh said. "By objecting to an accurate description of the situation, Democrats and the media are trying to make it impossible to oppose illegal immigration without being called racist."

Fox News' Brian Kilmeade, meanwhile, reaffirmed that there was no more accurate word for the phenomenon of migrant families crossing the border illegally - and then immediately turning themselves over to authorities, so as to pursue an asylum claim - than "invasion."

Fox & Friends host: "If you use the term 'an invasion,' that's not anti-Hispanic. It's a fact." pic.twitter.com/AhWpbcIndz
- Media Matters (@mmfa) August 6, 2019

Whenever anyone suggests that such rhetoric might inspire violence, the president's apologists will cry foul, and ask whether Berie Sanders is to blame for one of his supporters shooting up a congressional baseball game in 2017 - as though there couldn't possibly be any distinction between the senator accusing Republicans of trying to take away people's health insurance, on the basis of CBO reports, and Trump accusing Democrats of orchestrating an invasion of the United States, on the basis of nothing.

White supremacist violence predates our republic's independence (let alone Donald Trump's election). It's possible that the horrors witnessed in El Paso and Pittsburgh would have happened even if Trump was still a private citizen tending the flame of his fading celebrity. In fact, Hillary Clinton's election may have inspired a bigger uptick in white nationalist organizing than the one we've seen: After all, according to former Trump administration official Michael Anton, a Clinton win would have ensured "the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty," and thus, the left's "permanent victory" over traditional America.

But even if the combination of Trump's demagogy and a contested 2020 election never sows mass racial violence and civil unrest in the U.S. (an exceedingly unlikely hypothetical, and yet, one more plausible that any white-nationalist terror cell's plot for achieving the same ends), he will have done more damage to America's social fabric than an army of 8chan racists ever could. Hateful whites very rarely rain bullets down on the "others" they fear and loathe. But by most accounts, in the Trump era, they've grown far more comfortable spewing racist bile at every brown person who dares to frequent their community pools, or walk their streets, or shop at their Home Depots.

There is comfort in casting heavily armed neo-Nazis as the primary threat to racial equality and social peace in the United States. Americans would have no difficulty uniting in opposition to such an enemy. No mass political movement is invested in empowering the likes of Patrick Crusius. No cable news host makes his bread by rationalizing the homicidal acts of self-avowed white nationalists. But that is precisely why they pose a less formidable threat to multiracial democracy in our country than Donald Trump does.

The movement that imperils our republic is not skulking across the dark web; it is marching through the halls of power. And it cannot be thwarted by the FBI, DHS, or NSA - but only by the politics of cross-racial solidarity it exists to destroy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
White Nationalist Terrorism Is a Problem. Trump Is a Bigger One.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tucker Carlson said Tuesday that white supremacy is "not a real problem in America" - and that Donald Trump is no white supremacist. And he has half a point: Trump isn't a white nationalist militant - he's something much more dangerous than that.

# data[].attributes.body
The CDC and the FDA, along with other local and state healthcare partners, are now investigating lung injury and disease associated with vaping and e-cigarette use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and other clinical and public health partners are continuing to monitor e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI).

Updated February 25, 2020, at 1:00 PM EST

Emergency department (ED) visits related to e-cigarette, or vaping, products continue to decline, after sharply increasing in August 2019 and peaking in September.

National and state data from patient reports and product sample testing show tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly from informal sources like friends, family, or in-person or online dealers, are linked to most EVALI cases and play a major role in the outbreak.

Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak. Vitamin E acetate has been found in product samples tested by FDA and state laboratories and in patient lung fluid samples tested by CDC from geographically diverse states. Vitamin E acetate has not been found in the lung fluid of people that do not have EVALI.

Evidence is not sufficient to rule out the contribution of other chemicals of concern, including chemicals in either THC or non-THC products, in some of the reported EVALI cases.

CDC will continue to update guidance related to EVALI as appropriate.

About the Outbreak:

As of February 18, 2020, a total of 2,807 hospitalized EVALI cases or deaths have been reported to CDC from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands).

Emergency department (ED) visits related to e-cigarette, or vaping, products continue to decline, after sharply increasing in August 2019 and peaking in September.

National ED data and active case reporting from state health departments around the country show a sharp rise in symptoms or cases of EVALI in August 2019, a peak in September 2019, and a gradual, but persistent decline since then.

Reasons for the decline are likely multifactorial and may be related to the following:

Increased public awareness of the risk associated with THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, product use as a result of the rapid public health response.

Removal of vitamin E acetate from some products.

Law enforcement actions related to illicit products.

Laboratory data show that vitamin E acetate, an additive in some THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak.

A recent study analyzed samples from 51 EVALI cases from 16 states and a comparison group of samples from 99 comparison individuals without EVALI for vitamin E acetate, plant oils, medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oil, coconut oil, petroleum distillates, and diluent terpenes.

Vitamin E acetate was identified in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid samples (fluid samples collected from the lungs) from 48 of the 51 EVALI patients, but not in the BAL fluid from the healthy comparison group.

No other toxicants were found in BAL fluid from either group, except for coconut oil and limonene (1 EVALI patient each).

In August 2019, CDC started collecting data from states on EVALI cases using a standardized case report form. The data were voluntarily collected and submitted by each state to CDC on a routine basis. Due to the subsequent identification of the primary cause of EVALI, and the considerable decline in EVALI cases and deaths since a peak in September 2019, CDC stopped collecting these data from states as of February 2020.

However, CDC continues to monitor EVALI-related trends using emergency department data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program's BioSense/ESSENCE platform. These data do not suggest a resurgence of EVALI at this time.

CDC encourages clinicians to continue to report possible cases of EVALI to their local or state health department for further investigation.

CDC will continue to provide assistance to states, as needed, related to EVALI and will provide any updates at: www.cdc.gov/EVALI.

CDC and FDA recommend that people not use THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly from informal sources like friends, family, or in-person or online dealers.

Vitamin E acetate should not be added to any e-cigarette, or vaping, products. Additionally, people should not add any other substances not intended by the manufacturer to products, including products purchased through retail establishments.

Adults using nicotine-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products as an alternative to cigarettes should not go back to smoking; they should weigh all available information and consider using FDA-approved smoking cessation medications. If they choose to use e-cigarettes as an alternative to cigarettes, they should completely switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes and not partake in an extended period of dual use of both products that delays quitting smoking completely. They should contact their healthcare professional if they need help quitting tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, as well as if they have concerns about EVALI.

E-cigarette, or vaping, products (nicotine- or THC-containing) should never be used by youths, young adults, or women who are pregnant.

Adults who do not currently use tobacco products should not start using e-cigarette, or vaping, products.

THC use has been associated with a wide range of health effects, particularly with prolonged frequent use. The best way to avoid potentially harmful effects is to not use THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products.

Persons engaging in ongoing cannabis use that leads to significant impairment or distress should seek evidence-based treatment by a healthcare professional.

Key Facts about Use of E-Cigarette, or Vaping, Products

Electronic cigarettes-or e-cigarettes-are also called vapes, e-hookahs, vape pens, tank systems, mods, and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).

Using an e-cigarette is commonly called vaping.

E-cigarettes work by heating a liquid to produce an aerosol that users inhale into their lungs.

The liquid can contain: nicotine, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinoid (CBD) oils, and other substances, flavorings, and additives. THC is the psychoactive mind-altering compound of marijuana that produces the "high."

Key Facts about Vitamin E Acetate

Vitamin E acetate is used as an additive, most notably in THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products.

Vitamin E is a vitamin found in many foods, including vegetable oils, cereals, meat, fruits, and vegetables. It is also available as a dietary supplement and in many cosmetic products, like skin creams.

Vitamin E acetate usually does not cause harm when ingested as a vitamin supplement or applied to the skin. However, previous research suggests that when vitamin E acetate is inhaled, it may interfere with normal lung functioning.

If you have questions about CDC's investigation into the lung injuries associated with use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products, contact CDC-INFO or call 1-800-232-4636 .

As of December 3, 2019, CDC is only reporting hospitalized EVALI cases and EVALI deaths regardless of hospitalization status. CDC has removed nonhospitalized cases from previously reported case counts. See Public Health Reporting for more information.

As of February 18, 2020, a total of 2,807 hospitalized e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) cases or deaths have been reported to CDC from 50 states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands).

Sixty-eight deaths have been confirmed in 29 states and the District of Columbia (as of February 18, 2020):

Alabama, California (4), Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida (2), Georgia (6), Illinois (5), Indiana (6), Kansas (2), Kentucky, Louisiana (2), Massachusetts (5), Michigan (3), Minnesota (3), Mississippi, Missouri (2), Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York (4), Oregon (2), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee (2), Texas (4), Utah, Virginia and Washington (2).

The median age of deceased patients was 49.5 years and ranged from 15-75 years (as of February 18, 2020).

Among the 2,668 hospitalized EVALI cases or deaths reported to CDC (as of January 14, 2020):

66% were male

The median age of patients was 24 years and ranged from 13-85 years.

By age group category:

15% of patients were under 18 years old;

37% of patients were 18 to 24 years old;

24% of patients were 25 to 34 years old; and

24% of patients were 35 years or older.

2,022 hospitalized patients had data on substance use, of whom (as of January 14, 2020):

82% reported using THC-containing products; 33% reported exclusive use of THC-containing products.

57% reported using nicotine-containing products; 14% reported exclusive use of nicotine-containing products.

50% of EVALI patients who reported using THC-containing products provided data on product source (as of January 7, 2020):

16% reported acquiring products only from commercial sources (recreational and/or medical dispensaries, vape or smoke shops, stores, and pop-up shops).

78% reported acquiring products only from informal sources (family/friends, dealers, online, or other sources).

6% reported acquiring products from both commercial and informal sources.

54% of EVALI patients who reported using nicotine-containing products provided data on product source (as of January 7, 2020):

69% reported acquiring products only from commercial sources.

17% reported acquiring products only from informal sources.

15% reported acquiring products from both commercial and informal sources.

Number of Hospitalized EVALI Cases or Deaths Reported to CDC as of February 18, 2020

Dates of symptom onset and hospital admission for patients with lung injury associated with e-cigarette use, or vaping - United States, March 31, 2019-February 15, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Outbreak of Lung Injury Associated with the Use of E-Cigarette, or Vaping, Products

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CDC is investigating an outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use associated lung injury (EVALI). Learn CDC's recommendations, and the latest outbreak information.

# data[].attributes.body
FDA experts are now concerned about the illegal sales of JUUL to minors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although e-cigarettes have been around for more than a decade, vaping rates have skyrocketed in recent years, especially among teens. E-cigarettes are now the most frequently used tobacco product among adolescents - some 2.1 million middle and high school students were e-cigarette users in 2017 - far surpassing traditional combustible cigarettes.

JUUL, a popular vape device that comes in fun flavors, looks like a flash drive and can be charged in a USB port, is especially concerning. JUUL delivers high levels of nicotine, making the product extremely addictive. The company that makes and markets JUUL recently exceeded a $10 billion valuation faster than any company, including Facebook. JUUL sales now make up more than half of the e-cigarette market.

The FDA announced that it will be cracking down not only on illegal sales of e-cigarettes to minors, but also the "kid-friendly marketing and appeal of these products" because "we see clear signs that youth use of electronic cigarettes has reached an epidemic proportion." And after recent unexplained illnesses and deaths that have been attributed to vaping, the CDC and the American Medical Association are expressing serious concern, recommending that people should avoid vaping entirely.

Teachers, health professionals and parents are alarmed by the growing popularity of vaping among young people and trying to educate not only teens but also themselves, as it's all still so new.

Vaping is the act of inhaling and exhaling the vapor produced by the heated nicotine liquid (often called "juice") of an electronic cigarette (e-cigarette or e-cig), vape pen, or personal vaporizer. It's also commonly called JUULing (pronounced jewel-ing).

What originated as a smoking cessation aid has quickly became a popular - and addictive - product in its own right. Sarper Taskiran, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Child Mind Institute, attributes the recent rise in popularity to packaging and advertising. "The teens are after innovation and they're attracted by sleek design and ease of use," he says. "They look like an Apple product."

Although vaping companies emphatically deny that they are marketing to young people, critics note such features in their advertising as youthful images and colors, animation, actors who appear to be under 21, and suggestions that vaping makes you happier and improves your social status.

Although some of the health risks associated with vaping appear to be less severe than traditional combustible cigarettes (there's no tar, for example), there are still risks.

Some known risks of vaping are:

E-cigarettes contain high levels of nicotine. According to the company's website, the nicotine content of one JUULpod is equivalent to one pack of cigarettes.

Because of these high nicotine levels, vaping is extremely addictive - and teens are already more susceptible to addiction than adults because their brains are still developing, which makes them more likely to habituate to using drugs and alcohol.

Addiction can impact the ability to focus. Dr. Taskiran has observed this with the adolescents he works with, who report that vaping initially increases their alertness and attention, but then experience a decrease in attention span. One student, for example, was able to sit through practice ACT exams but after JUULing for six months "can't sit still because she starts craving, can't think of questions, and just starts fidgeting."

E-cigarettes and similar devices contain carcinogenic compounds, and a recent study found significantly increased levels of carcinogens in the urine of teens who vape.

One study found that vaping does, in fact, cause lung irritation akin to that seen in smokers and people with lung disease and causes damage to vital immune system cells.

There have been several deaths and hundreds of cases of lung illness attributed to vaping. Right now it is unclear if the cause is bootleg cartridges containing THC or CBD oil or legal nicotine cartridges. The CDC and the American Medical Association are recommending that people avoid vaping entirely while this is being investigated.

Taskiran notes that vaping increases heart rate and blood pressure, so can increase circulatory problems. One teen he works with started vaping and found that his swim times dropped because he can no longer sustain the heart rate required for swimming.

Since they leave little odor, e-cigarettes are particularly easy to hide and even use discreetly in public places, including school. Kids are also vaping marijuana at increasing rates, which brings its own health risks.

Why parents should be concerned

One problem with vaping is that teens hear that it's not as bad for your health as smoking cigarettes and many think there is no harm. "They really think that they are mostly flavors and that they are inhaling a pleasant gas," says Dr. Taskiran.

One study of 12th graders found that kids who vaped (but were not previously smokers) were more than four times as likely to "move away from the perception of cigarettes as posing a great risk of harm." The study and others like it have showed that teens who vape are much more likely to start smoking cigarettes.

The packaging does little to convey the risks. "They are very enticing the way they look. It's not transparent at all. It says 5% nicotine, which sounds like nothing, so teens think 95% is water weight or vapor," laments Dr. Taskiran.

Plus, he points out, smoking never stopped being cool. It's still positively portrayed in movies, and JUUL in particular has re-branded it to make vaping an even cooler alternative. But vaping isn't only for the cool kids - many teens are curious (with flavors like mango, cucumber and crème, who wouldn't be?) and presented with the opportunity will give it a try.

Sarah, a mom of two in Ann Arbor, MI, was shocked to get a phone call the other day from her son's middle school principal, requiring her to come get him immediately for "emergency removal and suspension." He and two friends had been caught vaping on school grounds after school, and a passing parent took photos and sent them to the administration.

Though they didn't find any devices on her son - a straight A student with no prior offenses - the school, like many others, is taking a hard stance. "The principal knows that vaping is common and shared that the businesses in downtown Ann Arbor are selling to teens without asking for IDs," relayed Sarah. "However, she feels the need to let my son and his friends know that it's a really, really big deal."

At this school, students caught vaping have to sign behavior contracts, must attend a Teens Using Drugs Class, and cannot participate in any sports, clubs or special events for the rest of the year. If the kids had been across the street, not on school grounds, it would have been a different scenario. But the principal said that had they been in high school rather than middle school, she would have called the police.

Sarah remembers what it was like to be a teenager so doesn't think trying it is that big of a deal, but is concerned about addiction. "Addiction runs in my family and I worry about my son. Of course, I worry about the damage that the chemicals can do to his lungs and body as well," she says.

Although some places are tightening restrictions locally, kids can still go to a website, click a button that says they are at least 21 years old, and purchase online. "The majority of adolescents I see are purchasing JUUL from the Internet," says Dr. Taskiran.

How to talk to kids about vaping

Dr. Taskiran advises parents to start by educating themselves, so they know what they're talking about going in, and to take an inquisitive and curious approach to what their teen's experience is. "The most important thing is keeping it as a dialogue," he says. "Declarative statements like 'It's bad for you' just end the conversation."

Dr. Taskiran recommends starting the conversation more generally by asking if a lot of kids at school vape. Once the conversation is initiated, you can slowly work up to asking things like, "What is your experience with that? What are the flavors like?" He also suggests getting a sense of what they know (or think they know) about the product, which gives you an opening to start educating them.

The silver lining of Sarah's experience with her son is that he actually told his dad about the experience even before he knew he'd been caught. "They had a full one hour conversation about it after I was already asleep. He told my husband that he tried it for the first time and that it burned his throat and he didn't like it." She got the call from the principal the next morning before her son had a chance to tell her himself. "He's a great kid and doesn't really get in trouble except for talking in class because he's bored. My goal has always been open communication and to keep him talking to us. He did!"

Of course, while parents need to educate themselves, the onus isn't entirely on them. "Schools need to own this as well and provide educational strategies for both teachers and students," says Dr. Taskiran. Prevention is a lot easier than treatment later on, he says, and notes that peer education can play a particularly important role.

If you are concerned that your child has become addicted there are plenty of treatment options. Dr. Taskiran recommends consulting with a clinician who is well-versed in addiction treatments. "This is a true nicotine addiction," he says. "People usually think this is different from cigarette use - but it can be more severe than cigarette use."

For tips on how to talk to teenagers about vaping, check out this guide from the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should I do if my teenager is vaping?

Why do teens vape?

Why is vaping bad for teens?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teen Vaping: What You Need to Know - Child Mind Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why do teens vape? What are the effects of vaping? Learn what are the dangers of e-cigarettes, why parents should be concerned, and get guidance on how to talk to kids about it.