Pregnancy and Intimate Partner Violence in Canada: a Comparison of Victims Who Were and Were Not Abused During Pregnancy

The purpose of this study was to examine risk factors, indicators of severity, and differences in post-violence health effects for victims who experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancy compared to victims who experienced IPV outside the pregnancy period. Data were from Statistics Canada’s 2009 General Social Survey. Among IPV victims, 10.5 % experienced physical and/or sexual violence during pregnancy. Victims who had experienced violence during pregnancy were more likely than victims who were not abused during pregnancy to experience both less severe and more severe forms of violence. In fully adjusted models, younger age, separated or divorced marital status, as well as partners’ patriarchal domination, destruction of property, and drinking were significant predictors of pregnancy violence. Measures indicative of more severe violence and of a number of adverse post-violence health effects were significantly elevated among victims who experienced pregnancy violence relative to victims who were not abused during pregnancy. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Intimate Partner Violence Advocates and Agencies

Relatively few studies have considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on intimate partner violence (IPV) advocates or the agencies where they work. In this study, based on United States IPV advocates’ experiences working with survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted interviews to explore: 1) personal challenges and resilience working as IPV advocates during the COVID-19 pandemic; 2) how agencies adapted to the pandemic to support IPV survivors and advocates; and 3) specific needs and challenges of culturally-specific agencies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 53 IPV advocates from June to November 2020. Participants were included if they worked directly with survivors, identified as an IPV advocate, worked at a US-based agency, and spoke and understood English. We created a sampling matrix to ensure adequate representation from IPV advocates serving survivors from communities which have been marginalized. Interviews were conducted through a virtual platform by a trained member of the research team. We used an inductive thematic analysis approach, with weekly coding meetings to resolve discrepancies in coding. Five themes emerged from the data: 1) IPV advocates described how working as an IPV advocate during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted them personally; 2) agencies developed new methods of addressing IPV advocates’ needs; 3) agencies developed new solutions to address pandemic-related client needs; 4) transitioning advocacy work to virtual formats created challenges but also opportunities and; 5) pandemic limitations and impacts compounded pre-pandemic challenges for culturally specific agencies. IPV advocates are frontline workers who have played essential roles in adjusting services to meet survivor needs during the COVID-19 pandemic while simultaneously coping with pandemic impacts on themselves and their agencies. Developing inter-agency collaborations and promoting advocates’ safety and wellbeing during future public health crises will help support IPV survivors.

     

Is routine histopathologic examination beneficial in all medicolegal autopsies?

Postmortem examinations are performed for a number of reasons. Medical autopsies are performed at the request of and with the consent of the next of kin of a decedent and are often requested to determine the extent of a disease process or to evaluate therapy. In contrast, medicolegal autopsies are performed by a forensic pathologist primarily to determine cause and manner of death but also to document trauma, diagnose potentially infectious diseases and report them to the appropriate agencies, provide information to families about potentially inheritable diseases, provide information to family members and investigative agencies, and testify in court. As medicolegal and hospital autopsies differ in their purpose, so do they differ in procedure. Medicolegal autopsies often include histologic analysis, but not always, as with medical autopsies. We designed a prospective study to address the question of whether or not routine histologic examination is useful in medicolegal cases, defining a routine case as one where histology would not normally be performed and where the cause and manner of death were readily apparent during the gross autopsy. We reviewed brain, heart, liver, kidney, and lung sections on 189 routine forensic cases and compared the results to the gross anatomic findings. Of the 189 cases, in only 1 case did microscopic examination affect the cause of death and in no case did microscopic examination affect the manner of death. Thus, we feel that routine microscopic examination (performing histologic examination in all cases regardless of cause and manner of death) in forensic autopsy is unnecessary. Microscopic examination should be used, as needed, in certain circumstances but is not necessary as a matter of routine.     

Medical malpractice reform and insurer claims defense: unintended effects?

In response to recent and past medical malpractice insurance crises, most states have implemented reforms meant to stabilize premiums and coverage availability. The importance of understanding whether these reforms implicitly affect the behavior and incentives of plaintiffs, attorneys, medical providers, and malpractice insurers in the intended way is crucial to policy makers, if they are to achieve their goal. This study specifically examines the effect of reforms on the claims defense efforts of insurers, given that defense expenses account for approximately 30 percent of malpractice premiums. Using state data for the period 1998-2002, we regress claims defense expenses against a variety of reform variables. These include seven tort reforms (noneconomic damage caps, punitive damage limits, attorney fee limits, modified collateral source rule, modified joint and several liability doctrine, mandatory pretrial screening, and statute of limitations) and two government-sponsored insurance mechanisms (joint underwriting associations and patient compensation funds). Claims defense expenses are found to be higher in the presence of noneconomic damage caps, punitive damage limits, and attorney fee limits--an unintended and counterproductive effect of reform--but are lower with mandatory pretrial screening and patient compensation funds.     

Personal Data and the GDPR: Providing a Competitive Advantage for U.S. Companies

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became applicable in May 2018. Due to the GDPR's extraterritorial scope, which could result in massive fines for U.S. companies, comparative data privacy law is of great current interest. In June 2018, California passed its own Consumer Privacy Act, echoing some of the provisions of the GDPR. Despite the many articles comparing the two schemes of law, little attention has been given to the foundation of these laws, that is, what exactly encompasses the data referred to by these laws? By understanding how the term “personal data” or “personal information” is defined in both jurisdictions, and why these definitions and the treatment of protected data are so different, companies can strategize to take advantage of these developments in the European Union. After explaining the differences in how data is treated in the United States and the European Union by exploring the definitions, regulations, and court cases, we will explore the five legal strategy pathways that companies might pursue with respect to the legal aspects of data transfer and privacy law compliance. While these strategies range from ignoring the law to adopting the European model worldwide, this analysis of legal strategy reveals a means for companies to gain a competitive advantage through their adoption of a worldwide compliance scheme.     

A comparative analysis of conviction outcomes of American domestic terrorists

This research uses quantitative analyses to determine whether or not conviction outcomes differ across three major American domestic terrorism groups: ecoterrorists, left-wing extremists, and right-wing extremists. Findings suggest that ecoterrorists receive lighter treatment within the criminal justice system while controlling for important variables, such as gender, age, and count severity. Findings highlight differences between “home-grown” terrorist groups, departing from a large segment of terrorism research focused on domestic versus international comparisons or terrorist versus civilian comparisons. Results elicit new research questions to understand why domestic terrorists receive differential treatment within the criminal justice system, despite controlling for key variables.