Politics

Mass shootings and police shootings have spurred calls for authorities to take action to reduce the violence. But policymakers may be stymied by the dearth of public health research into both gun violence and deaths that involve the police. One big obstacle: congressional restrictions on funding of such research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Right now, the CDC studies all kinds of violence. There’s a program on child abuse and youth violence, and the public health agency collects data on suicides and sexual assaults.

But there are some glaring research gaps. The CDC doesn’t systematically collect data on deaths at the hands of law enforcement, and there’s actually a law that effectively stops it from doing research on gun violence.

The authorization doesn’t explicitly forbid research; rather, it says that no funds may be used “to advocate or promote gun control.” But scientists got the message that firearms-related research was politically fraught.

Some scientists are looking to change that. “It’s never a good idea to muzzle scientific investigations for political reasons,” says Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Holt’s a physicist who was also a Democratic member of Congress until earlier this year. AAAS last week called for an end to congressional restrictions on gun research at the CDC.

“All the debate for several decades now has been carried out on the basis of opinion and ideology and assertion and political stance, rather than the evidence,” says Nancy Krieger, an epidemiologist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. If the government could collect detailed data on gun violence, researchers might see patterns and come up with interventions that could reduce the number of deaths, they say.

Krieger wants to see the same type of data on deaths that involve law enforcement. “We have an official mystery in the United States as to the number of people who are killed by the police,” she says.

Police departments sometimes resist reporting the data to the Justice Department, so official information is spotty. “Why are these only being treated as police data?” Krieger asks. “These are mortality records. We in public health count dead people. It’s one of the things we do. And we count them in order to understand how to prevent preventable deaths.”

Krieger says that for now the best source of information on gun deaths is a website created by the British newspaper The Guardian. “It’s shocking that we in the U.S. have to turn to a U.K. newspaper’s website to get timely reporting about who is being killed by the police. We have better a public health system than that.”

So in a paper published Tuesday in the journal PLOS Medicine, Krieger and several colleagues call for the CDC to declare law-enforcement-related deaths a so-called notifiable condition. That means public health workers — not police — would be required to report such deaths to a state or local agency.

The current limit on CDC research into overall gun violence came about in 1997 after some agency officials suggested the goal was to reduce access to guns.

The National Rifle Association seized on the statements, lobbying Congress to cut funding.

NRA spokesman Lars Dalseide says the organization doesn’t want the CDC to advocate for gun bans. “The NRA is not and never has been opposed to research that promoted the safe and responsible use of firearms and [it works] to reduce gun-related deaths,” he said.

Former Arkansas Rep. Jay Dickey, who sponsored the original bill restricting gun research, now says the restrictions have gone too far. He told NPR’s Steve Inskeep in October:

“It wasn’t necessary that all research stop. It just couldn’t be the collection of data so that they can advocate gun control. That’s all we were talking about. But for some reason, it just stopped altogether.”

Dickey now wants his former colleagues to repeal the limits on CDC research.

But that possibility looks remote. Earlier this year, an amendment to do just that was defeated in a House committee with almost no debate.

Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

Donald Trump made a drastic call on Monday for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Trump’s call comes one day after President Obama’s address from the Oval Office in the aftermath of the San Bernardino, California, shootings that were carried out by an apparently self-radicalized married couple. The male shooter was an American citizen, born in the United States. His wife was born in Pakistan but was in the U.S. legally on a visa for fiancees.

At a rally in Mount Pleasant, S.C., Monday evening, Trump read the statement to loud cheers from the crowd. He repeated claims that Muslims around the world believe violence against Americans is justified and that they believe American Muslims should be allowed to live under sharia law.

Trump also addressed how people can be radicalized online, suggesting “maybe in certain areas closing that Internet up in some way.” He also repeated calls for surveillance on mosques in the U.S. “Yes, we have to look at mosques, and we have to respect mosques,” he said. “Because something is happening in there. Man, there’s anger, and we have to know about it.”

His appearance was interrupted by protesters several times, including when he was explaining his latest proposal on keeping Muslims from entering the country. At that point, Trump referred to the person interrupting his rally by saying, “That’s alright. He sounds like he’s very exhausted.”

Trump, the wealthy real estate magnate who remains atop the GOP presidential field, has faced backlash for previous statements against Muslims and, before that, Hispanics. Following terrorist attacks in Paris, Trump endorsed the idea of a database to register Muslims in the U.S., saying he would “strongly consider” shutting down some mosques.

Pointing to polling data from the Pew Research Center and the right-leaning Center for Security Policy, Trump argued that Muslims’ “great hatred” of America had reached such a peak that drastic measures should be taken. But the data — or their validity — aren’t what’s important.

“Without looking at the various polling data,” Trump said in a statement, “it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski clarified that the ban would apply to “everyone,” including tourists, according to ABC.

The polling Trump uses — or interprets — to substantiate his argument is also suspect. The June 2015 Center for Security Policy poll is an online survey — a method seen as less reliable than live-caller surveys. Respondents were also given limited or leading choices for their responses.

A 2011 Pew survey, which Trump appears to be referencing, surveyed Muslims in seven Muslim-majority countries — Muslims in the U.S. were not surveyed. The word “hate” was never used — 68 percent of Muslims surveyed described Westerners as “selfish,” 66 percent called them “violent” and 57 percent said “arrogant.”

Muslim groups immediately sounded the alarm following Trump’s sweeping call.

“One has to wonder what Donald Trump will say next as he ramps up his anti-Muslim bigotry,” Council on American-Islamic Relations communications director Ibrahim Hooper told the Washington Post. “Where is there left for him to go? Are we talking internment camps? Are we talking the final solution to the Muslim question? I feel like I’m back in the 1930s.”

One of Trump’s rivals, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, was quick to condemn the statement. “This is kind of thing people say when they have no experience & no idea what they’re talking about,” Christie said, according to WNYC’s Matt Katz.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Trump was “unhinged.”

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham tweeted that “every candidate for president needs to do the right thing and condemn” Trump’s statement.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio followed suit on Twitter.

The chairs of the state Republican parties in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina all pushed back on Trump’s proposal.

Democratic presidential candidates also weighed in.

While referring to the idea as “at least, in part, an unconstitutional position,” conservative commentator Erick Erickson described the move by Trump as “brilliant politics for the here and now.”

He added, “it is really brilliant politics for Trump right now in the Republican primary and the reactions from the other candidates prove it. All the people attacking Trump on his immigration proposals now attacking him on this have done themselves no favors within the primary process.”

Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from gun owners who challenged a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines.

Two justices — Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia — would have heard the case and struck down the ban.

In deciding not to revisit the issue in the Highland Park case, the justices followed a pattern. Since declaring an individual right to bear arms, the court has largely stayed out of the gun control question altogether, refusing the pleas of gun rights advocates, in addition to many states that have urged the court to rule again and expand the right to gun ownership.

Monday’s action leaves in place a decision issued by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a local ordinance enacted in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park. In 2013 the town enacted a statute banning the possession of what it called assault weapons, including AR-15s, and AK-47s, and it banned large capacity magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Gun rights advocates promptly challenged the ban, contending that it violated the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a right to bear arms. In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment protects the right to own a gun for self defense in the home. But the 5-4 decision appeared to leave government at all levels wide latitude to regulate gun ownership and possession.

Since then, many state and local governments have enacted new and stricter gun laws in the face of mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, in Aurora, Colo., and elsewhere. And at the same time, gun rights advocates have challenged these and other gun control laws, claiming these statutes are unconstitutional.

In the Highland Park case, the justices debated for months whether to review the lower court decision upholding the law. The fact that it took so long suggests either that Justices Thomas and Scalia were trying to persuade some of their colleagues to hear the case, and failed, or that neither side of the closely divided court was sure it had to votes to prevail.

Justice Thomas, writing for himself and Justice Scalia in dissent, said that there is nothing unusual about the guns banned by the Highland Park ordinance; calling them assault weapons, he said, is nothing more than “anti-gun propaganda.” Allowing this and other similar laws to stand, he said, “flouts” the court’s previous rulings on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

Read Original Article – December 7, 2015 4:07 PM ET

Rejecting Appeal, Supreme Court Again Stays Out Of Gun Policy

Alaska’s Senators voted for a bill Thursday that would repeal major provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

The legislation also removes federal funding for Planned Parenthood. And it marks the first time an ACA repeal bill has made it through the Senate.

The vote was 52-47. It will likely pass the House, but it has no chance of being signed into law by President Obama.

Senator Lisa Murkowski spoke in favor of repealing the ACA on the Senate floor Thursday morning:

“For whom is the Affordable Care Act actually affordable?” Murkowski said. “It’s certainly not the average hard working Alaskan, being forced to shell out thousands of dollars for their premiums each month.”

Insurance premium rates in Alaska on healthcare.gov are among the most expensive in the country. But most people buying insurance on the exchange receive large subsidies to offset the cost. The average subsidy amount for 2015 plans in Alaska was more than $500 a month.

In the past, Senator Murkowski has said she doesn’t believe federal funds should be cut off to all of Planned Parenthood. She co-sponsored an amendment to the Affordable Care Act repeal bill that would have stripped out the Planned Parenthood language, but that amendment failed.

President Obama used a rare Oval Office address Sunday evening to speak to a worried nation about the evolving threat of terrorism and the growing influence of the Islamic State.

One of the biggest messages the president tried to communicate to the American people was that a fear of terrorist attacks must not translate into a fear of all Muslims and spark unnecessary targeting. But judging by the immediate response after the speech, Obama did little to bridge the partisan divide.

Speaking from a lectern in front of his desk, the president called Wednesday’s shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14 people at a holiday workplace party “an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people.”

However, he didn’t go so far to call it an act of “Islamic” terrorism, cautioning that even as a Muslim employee and his wife carried out the deadly attacks, there was “no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home.”

Still, Obama did begin to acknowledge that there did appear to be some link between their connection with Islamic radicals and their actions, saying, “It is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West.”

The shootings this past week follow last month’s deadly attacks in Paris that killed 130 people, for which ISIS took credit. Obama added that terrorists’ methods have evolved since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

“As we’ve become better at preventing complex multifaceted attacks like 9/11,” Obama said, “terrorists turn to less-complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all-too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009, in Chattanooga earlier this year and now in San Bernardino.”

The growing influence of ISIS in particular, which has used social media and technology to expand its reach, has changed the dynamic. Skepticism of Islam has also been fueled, in part, by suggestions from some GOP presidential candidates such as Donald Trump, who has agreed with the idea of creating a database to register Muslims in the U.S.

But Obama emphasized that such backlash and division is exactly what the terrorist group wants.

“Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear,” the president said. “That we have always met challenges, whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks, by coming together around our common ideals as one nation and one people.”

Obama also detailed the ways in which the U.S. has already stepped up its efforts against ISIS, including training moderate Iraqi and Syrian forces, deploying more American special forces to the area and increased intelligence sharing with allies.

The president also said he would call for a review of visa-screening measures after one of the San Bernardino shooters was allowed into the U.S. on a fiancée visa.

And Obama also asked for Congress to officially recognize U.S. efforts in the fight against the terrorist group.

“If Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists,” he said. “For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of air strikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united and committed to this fight.”

Obama also called for stricter gun-control measures, something that has been met with heavy resistance by Republicans.

“To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no- fly list is able to buy a gun,” the president said. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

He continued, “We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons, like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun-safety measures, but the fact is that our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, no matter how effective they are, cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual was motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology.”

Republican presidential candidates were quick to pan Obama’s speech.

Responding on Fox News shortly afterward, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said the president “said nothing new.”

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said in a statement: “If I am elected President, I will direct the Department of Defense to destroy ISIS. And I will shut down the broken immigration system that is letting jihadists into our country. Nothing President Obama said tonight will assist in either case.”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called for a “war-time Commander-in-chief”: “President Obama has finally been forced to abandon the political fantasy he has perpetuated for years that the threat of terrorism was receding.”

Trump live-tweeted during Obama’ speech — and wasn’t impressed with the brevity of the president’s 13-minute address.

Former New York Gov. George Pataki called the president’s response “pathetic.”

Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

The Pentagon has been debating the role of women in combat for generations. Women began serving in the military in support positions, far from the actual fighting. But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan essentially erased ideas of front lines — and even if women weren’t allowed in combat, technically, they were anyway.

Last week, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter made the shift official.

“Women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before,” Carter announced at an event Thursday. “They’ll be able to drive tanks, fire mortars, lead infantry soldiers into combat. They’ll be able to serve as Army Rangers, Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers — and everything else that was previously open only to men.”

It’s an announcement cheered by female Marines like Capt. Zoe Bedell, a logistics officer who served two tours in Afghanistan. She left the Marine Corps in 2011, citing frustrations with what she saw as a glass ceiling in the military.

“When you are at the basic school, which is the first round of Marine Corps training for officers, you list your preferences for your military job,” Bedell tells NPR’s Rachel Martin. “Infantry was not on the list, artillery was not on the list, human intelligence was not on the list — which I found particularly frustrating, because I had studied Arabic.”

Now, she is the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Department of Defense, which sought to overturn the ban against women in combat.

“If you think about what the Marine Corps does, the Marine Corps fights. It is a war-fighting organization. And so if you are being excluded from doing what the organization does, you are going to have more limited opportunities,” Bedell says. “You are going to always be marginalized within that organization.”

So, when Carter declared an end to that ban Thursday, Bedell says she got chills just listening. And as for the integration of women into combat positions, Bedell says, “I am very optimistic that they won’t disappoint.”

But there are some reasons to wonder if the transition will go smoothly. Bedell’s own Marine Corps privately resisted the decision, partly on the basis of the Corps’ yearlong study showing mixed combat units performed worse than all-male units.

Marine Lt. Col. Kate Germano, an active-duty officer who ran an all-female training battalion at Parris Island, the Corps’ boot camp in South Carolina, says the key to success in the transition rests partly in recruitment.

“If you select the right women, who are already fit and are athletically inclined, and are mentally strong and resilient, they fare better than those who come to Parris Island completely not prepared,” Germano tells NPR’s Lynn Neary.

“What I will say is that women who choose to join the Marine Corps generally come in because they want to be held to a higher standard,” says Germano, who has been training Marines for years. “And my higher standard applied to men as well as women.”

And she’s careful to note that, despite the way headlines may make the situation sound, one thing isn’t changing.

“This isn’t about women going into combat; women have gone into combat for decades now and have excelled. This is in particular about infantry,” Germano says.

“There will be a certain number of women who are qualified and many, many other women will not be qualified — or may be qualified but may not desire the job. You could say the same thing for the male population. What I would say is this is really about the next generation of Marines. ”

Mostly, she says, the transition may come down to a simple principle.

“This is a team effort,” Germano says, “and this is about making sure that we’ve just established a level platform for women and men.”

Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.