Why we should eliminate personal belief exemptions to vaccine mandates

We argue that personal belief exemptions to the mandate for childhood immunizations should not be allowed. Parents who choose not to immunize their children put both their own children and other children at risk. Other children are at risk because unimmunized children go to school or day care when they are contagious but asymptomatic, exposing many more children to potentially dangerous infections. The risks to children from disease are much higher than the risks of vaccines. There are, of course, some bona fide reasons why children should not be immunized. Some children have known allergies or other medical contraindications to certain immunizations. Immunization refusals based on parental beliefs, however, do not fall into this category. In those cases, children are denied the protection of immunizations without any medical or scientific justification. By eliminating personal belief exemptions to those childhood vaccines associated with contagious diseases that have high rates of childhood mortality, we would better protect children and would more fairly spread the burdens of this important public health program.     

Technology Acquisition by Terrorist Groups: Threat Assessment Informed by Lessons from Private Sector Technology Adoption

Because of the importance of technology to the operations of modern terrorist groups, the factors that affect the technological sophistication of extreme organizations are of great interest. In this article, the process through which terrorist groups seek out and deploy new technology is examined by bringing to bear the deep literature that exists on technology adoption by commercial organizations. A framework is described that delineates not only the factors that influence a group's decision-making processes surrounding new technology but also the obstacles that stand in the way of the successful absorption and use of unfamiliar technologies by a terrorist organization. This framework, by taking a holistic view of the entire technology adoption process, sets out a methodology to both more reasonably predict the outcome of a group's technology-seeking efforts and to speculate about its future innovation efforts. Such a technology focused viewpoint provides a route to more fully inform risk assessment, especially with regard to the low probabilityhigh consequence technologies that have served as the focus of much recent counterterrorist deliberation. The lessons provided by the framework with respect to weapons of mass destruction terrorism and to novel counterterrorist routes are discussed.     

Rifling Through the Terrorists’ Arsenal: Exploring Groups’ Weapon Choices and Technology Strategies

In terrorist operations, weapons technologies are the tools groups use to pursue their violent ends. Because of differences in what they can do, different weapons are useful for different types of operations. Using a random sample of terrorist incidents from the RAND-MIPT Terrorism Incident Database, this article explores (1) how terrorists in general used particular weapons technologies and (2) the variation in the technology choices of individual terrorist groups. The results demonstrate significant differences in the ways different weapons are used, in the versatility of individual technologies, and among the technology strategies of different terrorist organizations.     

Literal Meaning: Semantics and Narrative in Biblical Law and Modern Jurisprudence

The modern conception of the ``Rule of Law'' entails government bylaw not men, and takes law to consist in rules known in advance. Thislatter characteristic assumes that, for the most part, the meaningof such rules is unproblematic (Hart's ``core of settled meaning''), this usually being understood as a function of ``literal meaning''.A quite different model exists in the Bible: the early rules display``oral residue'', and their meaning, I argue, is constructed in``narrative'' rather than ``semantic'' terms: instead of asking:``what situations do the words of this rule cover?'', we shouldinquire: ``what typical situations do the words of this rule evoke?''.Moreover, courtroom adjudication was not the norm, and its originalform was not based upon the application of written rules but ratherupon judicial discretion taken to have been divinely inspired. Isuggest that modern jurisprudence still retains traces of such earlierconceptions, in its account of modern law: despite their differences, both Hart and Fuller make use of narrative constructions of meaning,and Kelsen ultimately prefers the authority of the judge to the correctness of the rule he purports to apply.

     

Examining the Impact of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Related to Intimate Partner Violence on Antenatal,Intrapartum and Postpartum Women: A Scoping Review

We undertook a comprehensive scoping review of published academic articles to examine the extent, range and nature of research related to the effects of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among childbearing women who have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV). Fifty-five sources were identified from the electronic databases and two additional sources were identified after searching reference lists. Among the 57 articles, five met the inclusion criteria of childbearing women who have experienced IPV and PTSD. Numerical analysis revealed considerable heterogeneity among articles, with various aims, methodological approaches, patient populations and outcomes of interest. Inductive thematic content analysis revealed three themes: (1) context; (2) outcomes; and (3) changes in practice. The findings from this first attempt at summarizing literature via a scoping review demonstrate the need for additional research related to: identification of, treatment interventions for, and understanding the mechanisms of impact for IPV related PTSD among childbearing women.     

Negotiation or Mediation?: An Exploration of Factors Affecting the Choiceof Conflict Management in International Conflict

The conditions under which negotiation or mediation are chosen in internationalconflict have been little studied. Previous research has tended tofocus on the motivations and rational calculations of the states involved.Scant attention has been given to examining the effect of the context onthis choice. In this article, we present a framework for studying the contextualconditions under which negotiation or mediation are likely to takeplace. Employing an original data set, we find that negotiation tends to beused when conflicts are relatively simple, of a low intensity, and when bothparties are relatively equal in power. Mediation, on the other hand, tends tobe used in disputes characterized by high complexity, high intensity, longduration, unequal and fractionated parties, and where the willingness ofthe parties to settle peacefully is in doubt.