Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

Peregrine wrote:

It's not really silly. Prescription medication is covered by default, whatever the reasons. The real question is why a special exception for one specific product should be made.

at the same time it’s kind of like no one ‘needs’ contraception. That’s disclosing the reality the some drugs have multiple uses.

Apparently you are not very educated on the alternative uses of birth control pills. There is definitely alternative situations where the *need* is there.


https://youngwomenshealth.org/2011/10/18/medical-uses-of-the-birth-control-pill/

Adolescent girls and young women are often prescribed birth control pills for irregular or absent menstrual periods, menstrual cramps, acne, PMS, endometriosis, Primary Ovarian Insufficiency (POI) and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS). Girls who are diagnosed with PCOS are often prescribed oral contraceptives to lower their hormone levels and regulate their menstrual periods.

That’s fair. I am a member of the boy band as it were so knowing every in and out of what pills get used for just isn’t something I came across in life and I’m hardly an expert. Though I’d look out the very next sentence of my post basically says I don’t have a problem with drugs being prescribed for medical reasons just because they can be used for other purposes.

Just because I don’t think it’s necessry for insurance to cover someone’s managing of pregnancy risks isn’t the same thing as saying I’m opposed to drugs being used to fix problems that can make day to day life more difficult, or manage hormones or whatever else someone might need to live in normalcy. I said the opposite in fact.

If anything that kind of just goes back to my original position. Employers have no business knowing what your doctor thinks is best for you and if the doctor thinks the pill will help with a hormone imbalance or cramping that will impact your life then I fail to see why the employers religious preference should override the doctor’s professional diagnosis. It’s not Hobby Lonby’s business to know that Jane in accounting has some condition for which a doctor is prescribing pills and if it’s not their business to know it’s not their business to dictate medical care from behind the screen of their medical ignorance.

In other news the CPRC has released a new paper criticizing Adam Lankford's 2016 paper that claimed 31% of mass shootings from 1966 to 2012 happened in the US.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/

I would like to look at Lankford's data to see why there is such a large discrepancy between the two, especially since the CPCR data is very detailed. It looks like Lankford was only using english sources for his research which would mean his data isn't nearly as comprehensive as he claimed.

Edit: Direct link to the CPRC paper if you don't want to read just the abstract https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=536091091118087015024028015025082085042000030015068027092095119074070094091084001027002103017022061031004093011071064096026105022042089033035099097070102103093041019010064092092004127075066008022001092116103006112090125065001027082126124021097121&EXT=pdf

Herzlos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Passports being taken from US citizens:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-is-denying-passports-to-americans-along-the-border-throwing-their-citizenship-into-question/ar-BBMCBPS

I do not say this lightly: the Trump adminstration is the scum of humanity. I cannot put my disgust into words. Not because of the above specifically, but just... Everything.

But I still believe we deserve it. We as a country made it happen, we own the consequences.

That's horrific. You'd think any sane or compassionate government (I know, not happening here) would just offer an amnesty on the certificates in question and just crack down on the process going forwards. How many people are illegally here by getting a fake birth certificate do you reckon? A few thousand? These people have grown up as Americans, got SS numbers, paid tax, and so on. Who gives a stuff if some of them were born over the border?

Do your immigration officers really have nothing better to do?

"Who gives a stuff if some of them were born over the border?"

The situation is quite serious. Fraudulent legal documents used to circumvent their illegal immigration process? Who cares? I guess at this point no one should care about the "fraudulent citizens"...so much time has elapsed I think it would be cruel to do anything about it. The real guilty parties are the midwives who made the fraudulent documents. Prosecute them. The "fraudulent citizens" at this point should be cleared of all wrong doing IMO and allowed access to passports and other legal documents.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Peregrine wrote:

It's not really silly. Prescription medication is covered by default, whatever the reasons. The real question is why a special exception for one specific product should be made.

at the same time it’s kind of like no one ‘needs’ contraception. That’s disclosing the reality the some drugs have multiple uses.

Apparently you are not very educated on the alternative uses of birth control pills. There is definitely alternative situations where the *need* is there.


https://youngwomenshealth.org/2011/10/18/medical-uses-of-the-birth-control-pill/

Adolescent girls and young women are often prescribed birth control pills for irregular or absent menstrual periods, menstrual cramps, acne, PMS, endometriosis, Primary Ovarian Insufficiency (POI) and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS). Girls who are diagnosed with PCOS are often prescribed oral contraceptives to lower their hormone levels and regulate their menstrual periods.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/womens-health/treating-premenstrual-dysphoric-disorder
"Oral contraceptives. Although frequently prescribed for PMDD because they regulate and stabilize reproductive hormones, oral contraceptives have seldom been studied for this purpose, and it's not clear if they are effective.

The one exception is YAZ, a contraceptive approved by the FDA in 2006 that combines ethinyl estradiol (an estrogen) with drospirenone. Clinical trials have demonstrated that this drug is effective for treating PMDD."
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/9132-premenstrual-dysphoric-disorder-pmdd

 Just Tony wrote:

Okay, now take this precedent/principle that you're pushing for, and then apply it to any other crime where someone takes possession of something that isn't theirs. Why is it so hard to understand why the precedent of amnesty for crimes is a bad thing? Do you think it would end with just immigration?

US USED to have principle that if you can't PROVE somebody is guilty he/she isn't guilty. Idea being better guilty person escape justice than innocent be sentenced from crime he/She didn't commit.

Trump decided "screw that. All are assumed guilty". Since you compare to other crimes howabout accusing somebody of murder, execute and THEN start to wonder was he/she guilty in the first place?

 DrGiggles wrote:
In other news the CPRC has released a new paper criticizing Adam Lankford's 2016 paper that claimed 31% of mass shootings from 1966 to 2012 happened in the US.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/

I would like to look at Lankford's data to see why there is such a large discrepancy between the two, especially since the CPCR data is very detailed. It looks like Lankford was only using english sources for his research which would mean his data isn't nearly as comprehensive as he claimed.

Without having glanced at either paper, it's pretty obvious that the level of mass shootings in places like Vietnam during the war, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the Balkans during ethnic cleansing, and Syria/Iraq under ISIL, are going to be higher than in the USA.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:
In other news the CPRC has released a new paper criticizing Adam Lankford's 2016 paper that claimed 31% of mass shootings from 1966 to 2012 happened in the US.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/

I would like to look at Lankford's data to see why there is such a large discrepancy between the two, especially since the CPCR data is very detailed. It looks like Lankford was only using english sources for his research which would mean his data isn't nearly as comprehensive as he claimed.

Without having glanced at either paper, it's pretty obvious that the level of mass shootings in places like Vietnam during the war, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the Balkans during ethnic cleansing, and Syria/Iraq under ISIL, are going to be higher than in the USA.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NY-Times-Lankford-vs-Corrected-Data-on-Mass-Public-Shootings.png
this is from the article. Time period 1998-2012.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:
In other news the CPRC has released a new paper criticizing Adam Lankford's 2016 paper that claimed 31% of mass shootings from 1966 to 2012 happened in the US.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/

I would like to look at Lankford's data to see why there is such a large discrepancy between the two, especially since the CPCR data is very detailed. It looks like Lankford was only using english sources for his research which would mean his data isn't nearly as comprehensive as he claimed.

Without having glanced at either paper, it's pretty obvious that the level of mass shootings in places like Vietnam during the war, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the Balkans during ethnic cleansing, and Syria/Iraq under ISIL, are going to be higher than in the USA.

Agreed, but I believe they excluded rebel insurgencies to try and make it a cleaner comparison to shootings in the US.

 DrGiggles wrote:
In other news the CPRC has released a new paper criticizing Adam Lankford's 2016 paper that claimed 31% of mass shootings from 1966 to 2012 happened in the US.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/

I would like to look at Lankford's data to see why there is such a large discrepancy between the two, especially since the CPCR data is very detailed. It looks like Lankford was only using english sources for his research which would mean his data isn't nearly as comprehensive as he claimed.

Lower than the global average of you include war zones and humanitarian help holes? I’ve barely read it and Inalready find this research suspicious especially with a side bar filled books with titles like The War on Guns and The Bias against Guns. Further look through their incident list includes well know terrosit attacks, events that no one would call as mass shooting, and deaths that are directly related to sectarian violence. He’s got stuff related to the Rwandan genocide in his data set...I don’t think most people would compare public shootings to terrorism, genocides, and what looks like typical criminal activity. And the oldest case is 1998 which is a rather more modern data set than Lankford purports to use.

It’s fair to say the guy should release his data but I found in about five minutes a half dozen reasons this study is questionable or irrelevant in relation to his and that website looks more like a store pretending to be an advocacy group than anything so I’m going to predict that nothing will come of this but lots of partisan talking points and debunking of bad data that will be ignored so people can complain about the shadowy government conspiracy to steal our guns!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:
In other news the CPRC has released a new paper criticizing Adam Lankford's 2016 paper that claimed 31% of mass shootings from 1966 to 2012 happened in the US.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/

I would like to look at Lankford's data to see why there is such a large discrepancy between the two, especially since the CPCR data is very detailed. It looks like Lankford was only using english sources for his research which would mean his data isn't nearly as comprehensive as he claimed.

Without having glanced at either paper, it's pretty obvious that the level of mass shootings in places like Vietnam during the war, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the Balkans during ethnic cleansing, and Syria/Iraq under ISIL, are going to be higher than in the USA.

This.

The CPRC is founded by John Lott, a pro-gun advocate who has even been caught in the past posing as an ex-student in order to post favourable reviews of his work. He has also claimed to have carried out a survey in the past but when his survey data was requested he claimed it had been lost in a hard drive failure, that the paper records of the surveys had been lost during a move and that he could not recall any of the names of the students who carried out his survey.

In other words, I doubt his academic integrity.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:
In other news the CPRC has released a new paper criticizing Adam Lankford's 2016 paper that claimed 31% of mass shootings from 1966 to 2012 happened in the US.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/

I would like to look at Lankford's data to see why there is such a large discrepancy between the two, especially since the CPCR data is very detailed. It looks like Lankford was only using english sources for his research which would mean his data isn't nearly as comprehensive as he claimed.

Without having glanced at either paper, it's pretty obvious that the level of mass shootings in places like Vietnam during the war, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the Balkans during ethnic cleansing, and Syria/Iraq under ISIL, are going to be higher than in the USA.

This.

The CPRC is founded by John Lott, a pro-gun advocate who has even been caught in the past posing as an ex-student in order to post favourable reviews of his work.

In other words, I doubt his academic integrity.

See my comment above, I don't think Lankford included them but even if he did include those shootings he still found that the USA had a higher rate of shootings. And I'd like to compare the data from Lankford's study to see if there are holes in Lott's, but since he won't release it that makes it fairly difficult.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Without having glanced at either paper, it's pretty obvious that the level of mass shootings in places like Vietnam during the war, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the Balkans during ethnic cleansing, and Syria/Iraq under ISIL, are going to be higher than in the USA.

But can those even be compared? Those non-US examples are armies, governments, militias, terrorist organisations taking out people for some agenda reason even if it's just "we hate them guys". In the US it's usually a lone gunman (rarely two) who go after a mostly random pack of civilians, often for no reason at all as far as investigators can determine.

It just seems odd to compare "organized" mass murders carried out by a group to killing sprees carried out by one guy who usually commits suicide to boot.

Both seem very suspect. One refusing to release the data and the other seems to have dodgy data not comparing like for like.

On further inspection this guy is ancomplet crock. He lists the US as having 325 mass shooting deaths since 1998. I don’t even have to double check to know that’s wrong. Extremely wrong actually. To double check go to Guardian. The Guardian has a list of mass shootings going back to 2013 and it has 1624 which blows this wackos number out of the water while using a stricter definition of mass shooting (Guardian uses four or more victims to define while CPRC’s incident list includes many where only two or three were harmed).

Edit: nope found it right there at the bottom naturally XD

 LordofHats wrote:
On further inspection this guy is ancomplet crock. He lists the US as having 325 mass shooting deaths since 1998. I don’t even have to double check to know that’s wrong. Extremely wrong actually. To doue check go to Guardian. The Guardian has a list of mass shootings going back to 2013 and it has 1624 which blows this wackos number out of the water while using a stricter definition of mass shooting (Guardian uses four or more victims to define while CPRC’s incident list includes many where only two or three were harmed).

Edit: nope found it right there at the bottom naturally XD

See section 3 Part A on page 7, both the CPRC and Lankford's papers limited it to shootings where 4+ people were killed not including the shooters.

And how many of the Guardian's shootings are related to Gang violence? I'd bet a huge chunk of them. It would also be good to list how many of those could have been stopped with any of the proposed legislation that the left always trots out. You'd see that number shrink dramatically.

Just perusing through their sources, it seems like the vast majority are Gang related. Which doesn't fit the narrative at all. Gang shootings are a problem because of Gang culture, not easy access to guns. These guys would, and do, murder each with other implements. Thats where the real focus should be on.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And how many of the Guardian's shootings are related to Gang violence? I'd bet a huge chunk of them. It would also be good to list how many of those could have been stopped with any of the proposed legislation that the left always trots out. You'd see that number shrink dramatically.

Just perusing through their sources, it seems like the vast majority are Gang related. Which doesn't fit the narrative at all. Gang shootings are a problem because of Gang culture, not easy access to guns. These guys would, and do, murder each with other implements. Thats where the real focus should be on.

I'd love to see a drive by stabbing, you think they'd start using lances?

I like to have fun with this kind of stupiditiy, because your gun laws are my problem

 DrGiggles wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
On further inspection this guy is ancomplet crock. He lists the US as having 325 mass shooting deaths since 1998. I don’t even have to double check to know that’s wrong. Extremely wrong actually. To doue check go to Guardian. The Guardian has a list of mass shootings going back to 2013 and it has 1624 which blows this wackos number out of the water while using a stricter definition of mass shooting (Guardian uses four or more victims to define while CPRC’s incident list includes many where only two or three were harmed).

Edit: nope found it right there at the bottom naturally XD

See section 3 Part A on page 7, both the CPRC and Lankford's papers limited it to shootings where 4+ people were killed not including the shooters.

I’m looking at his incident list so I don’t really care what his paper says. He’s also got military deaths in combat and law enforcement fatalities in shoot outs which no one includes in mass shooting data. I’m also check his US list and it’s missing a lot of shootings for no apparent reason like one in New Orleans with eight victims in January, and another In April with five just in 2012 that I found just Googling mass shootings 2012.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And how many of the Guardian's shootings are related to Gang violence? I'd bet a huge chunk of them. It would also be good to list how many of those could have been stopped with any of the proposed legislation that the left always trots out. You'd see that number shrink dramatically.

Just perusing through their sources, it seems like the vast majority are Gang related. Which doesn't fit the narrative at all. Gang shootings are a problem because of Gang culture, not easy access to guns. These guys would, and do, murder each with other implements. Thats where the real focus should be on.

I'd love to see a drive by stabbing, you think they'd start using lances?

I like to have fun with this kind of stupiditiy, because your gun laws are my problem

Straw Purchases are illegal everywhere. Failing to fill out all of the federal paperwork and background checks when selling a gun is illegal everywhere.

That article is moronic. Everything it listed as being a source for guns is illegal at all levels. More laws won't fix the problem of somebody making a straw purchase or a gunshop deciding not to perform their required paperwork, because there are already laws saying that is illegal!

If something is illegal, that means there are already laws preventing said thing from happening. So more laws won't do a single damn thing.

 LordofHats wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
On further inspection this guy is ancomplet crock. He lists the US as having 325 mass shooting deaths since 1998. I don’t even have to double check to know that’s wrong. Extremely wrong actually. To doue check go to Guardian. The Guardian has a list of mass shootings going back to 2013 and it has 1624 which blows this wackos number out of the water while using a stricter definition of mass shooting (Guardian uses four or more victims to define while CPRC’s incident list includes many where only two or three were harmed).

Edit: nope found it right there at the bottom naturally XD

See section 3 Part A on page 7, both the CPRC and Lankford's papers limited it to shootings where 4+ people were killed not including the shooters.

I’m looking at his incident list so I don’t really care what his paper says. He’s also got military deaths in combat and law enforcement fatalities in shoot outs which no one includes in mass shooting data. I’m also check his US list and it’s missing a lot of shootings for no apparent reason like one in New Orleans with eight victims in January, and another In April with five just in 2012 that I found just Googling mass shootings 2012.

The only reason to exclude them I can think of is that the cases are still open and both papers looked only at "closed" cases, see page 8. Flawed yes, but if those were the criteria then they are also not including shootings like that overseas.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And how many of the Guardian's shootings are related to Gang violence? I'd bet a huge chunk of them. It would also be good to list how many of those could have been stopped with any of the proposed legislation that the left always trots out. You'd see that number shrink dramatically.

Just perusing through their sources, it seems like the vast majority are Gang related. Which doesn't fit the narrative at all. Gang shootings are a problem because of Gang culture, not easy access to guns. These guys would, and do, murder each with other implements. Thats where the real focus should be on.

Irrelevant to the definition of a mass shooting. The Guardian is just yanking data from the Gun Violence Archive which includes sourcing for incidents. I’m looking through them now just to see and your claim that ‘most’ are gang violence related isn’t holding water. Paintsville KY not gang related. Detroit Feb 11 2018 not gang related. Parkland shooting not gang related. Colorado Springs not gang related though I guess law enforcement does get included in these things so I’ll have to surrender on that point. Garfield Heights not gang related do I really need to keep going on this?

What did you do? Google New Orleans Feb 13 2018 and stop? How very rigorous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The only reason to exclude them I can think of is that the cases are still open and both papers looked only at "closed" cases, see page 8. Flawed yes, but if those were the criteria then they are also not including shootings like that overseas.

Honestly that’s Just flimsy. He’s purporting to research incidents not convictions and the only reason to exclude cases that are more than 6 years old because they’re still open is to is to fudge data. There’s no question it happened and that there were injuries. yesterday’s shooting? Sure can’t include that cause it’s new ane someone might die next week from injuries all we know but he cuts off his data in 2012 and there’s no reason to exclude those incidents unless he’s hunting to diminish the US death total and that seems to be the only purpose of what he’s doing. I’m just adding up the cases listed on Wikipedia under school shooting and that number is 236 ignoring any number lower than 4 for victims. Then I went to look up work place shootings and stopped because the number topped 400 by 2006. So Indidn’t even get to hate crimes or shooters with political or religious motivations.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And how many of the Guardian's shootings are related to Gang violence? I'd bet a huge chunk of them. It would also be good to list how many of those could have been stopped with any of the proposed legislation that the left always trots out. You'd see that number shrink dramatically.

Just perusing through their sources, it seems like the vast majority are Gang related. Which doesn't fit the narrative at all. Gang shootings are a problem because of Gang culture, not easy access to guns. These guys would, and do, murder each with other implements. Thats where the real focus should be on.

Irrelevant to the definition of a mass shooting. The Guardian is just yanking data from the Gun Violence Archive which includes sourcing for incidents. I’m looking through them now just to see and your claim that ‘most’ are gang violence related isn’t holding water. Paintsville KY not gang related. Detroit Feb 11 2018 not gang related. Parkland shooting not gang related. Colorado Springs not gang related though I guess law enforcement does get included in these things so I’ll have to surrender on that point. Garfield Heights not gang related do I really need to keep going on this?

What did you do? Google New Orleans Feb 13 2018 and stop? How very rigorous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The only reason to exclude them I can think of is that the cases are still open and both papers looked only at "closed" cases, see page 8. Flawed yes, but if those were the criteria then they are also not including shootings like that overseas.

Honestly that’s Just flimsy. He’s purporting to research incidents not convictions and the only reason to exclude cases that are more than 6 years because they’re still open is to is to fudge data. There’s no question it happened and that there were injuries. A crash happened yesterday shooting? Sure can’t include that cause it’s new ane someone might die next week from injuries all we know but he cuts off his data in 2012 and there’s no reason to exclude those incidents unless he’s hunting to diminish the US death total and that seems to be the only purpose of what he’s doing.

I agree it is flimsy, but Lankford seems to have used those criteria which is why the CPRC used them as well. Again, having Lankford's data to compare with the CPRC would be incredibly helpful.

 DrGiggles wrote:
Again, having Lankford's data to compare with the CPRC would be incredibly helpful.

.

Not really. I’m a rank amateur and I can already tell that CPRC’s data is junk. At best we end up with Junk data to compare to not junk data which is worthless as a comparison. At worse they’re both junk data which is still worthless for comparison.

 Grey Templar wrote:
More laws won't fix the problem of somebody making a straw purchase or a gunshop deciding not to perform their required paperwork, because there are already laws saying that is illegal! If something is illegal, that means there are already laws preventing said thing from happening. So more laws won't do a single damn thing.

Laws that can't be enforced - or just aren't enforced for some reason - are a blight on society, whether it be gun laws, tax laws or whatever. Really one of my least favorite political pet peeves - stuff happens, politician proposes new law (named after himself ofc) to make people happy, no one cares to make it actually useful or possible to enforce. What use is a law that says littering is illegal on penalty of a fine if there's no police officers on foot who can ever spot someone breaking that law? The more useless laws we have the less respect people will have for the whole judicial system.

Another large problem in the US - and many other countries - is that the authorities are inefficient, don't cooperate with each other or both.

 LordofHats wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:
Again, having Lankford's data to compare with the CPRC would be incredibly helpful.

.

Not really. I’m a rank amateur and I can already tell that CPRC’s data is junk. At best we end up with Junk data to compare to not junk data which is worthless as a comparison. At worse they’re both junk data which is still worthless for comparison.

Agreed to an extent. Comparing junk data may be worthless but being able to prove they are junk should help get people to stop citing them as a reason to support a policy. If we are going to be using academic research as proof that we need a policy then we should be making sure that the research is actually good before we run with it.

 DrGiggles wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:
Again, having Lankford's data to compare with the CPRC would be incredibly helpful.

.

Not really. I’m a rank amateur and I can already tell that CPRC’s data is junk. At best we end up with Junk data to compare to not junk data which is worthless as a comparison. At worse they’re both junk data which is still worthless for comparison.

Agreed to an extent. Comparing junk data may be worthless but being able to prove they are junk should help get people to stop citing them as a reason to support a policy. If we are going to be using academic research as proof that we need a policy then we should be making sure that the research is actually good before we run with it.

Honestly I think all of this overstates Lankford’s importance. He made headlines sure but he’s hardly the basis for policy proposals. Hundreds of dead kids are the basis of policy proposals made by people who think the cost of our gun culture is too high. That our solution to mass shootings is ‘arm teachers’ and ‘fortify all public spaces’ and such are the reason for policy proposals because for some the solution to shootings isn’t turning society into a lot of heavily armed and secured spaces but to go after guns. We can debate that but statistics have never been the basis for anything just extra fuel for the fires on either side that might occasionally be useful for framing things.

Lankford is ultimately irrelevant.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/30/brown-u-pulls-gender-dysphoria-study-worried-that-findings-might-invalidate-perspectives-transgender-community.html
Brown U shuts down it's own research on subject because the findings -
"might invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community".
Very disturbing. PC culture shutting down scientific investigation.

 Xenomancers wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/30/brown-u-pulls-gender-dysphoria-study-worried-that-findings-might-invalidate-perspectives-transgender-community.html
Brown U shuts down it's own research on subject because the findings -
"might invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community".
Very disturbing. PC culture shutting down scientific investigation.

They should have pulled it because it was junk science, regardless of who might be upset by it.

And oh look, if you go beyond Fox News and look at the original source you find that:

1) The research wasn't shut down. The study was finished and published, the only thing pulled was a PR article talking about the study.

2) The uiniversity's statement on the subject explicitly refers to concerns about poor experiment design. It also explicitly mentions how the authors of the study presented their work, specifically their failure to mention the limitations of the study. Once you have that context it clearly becomes a case of "this was junk science and we should have thought more about the people who could be hurt by it", not "THE TRUTH REVEALS OUR PC SJW CULTURE WE MUST HIDE IT".

Of course this shouldn't be at all surprising, given the fact that your source was a Fox News article quoting from an article by Ben Shapiro.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think part of the issue is that "closely held private corporations" appears as a really flimsy and fickle standard, and that doesn't offer any meaningful distinction for employees or employers from company's that don't fit it except that it is convenient for certain parties.

That the end of the day the issue is that some people don't think an employer should be dictating how employee healthcare, and certainly not along the lines of the employer's religious convictions. It ultimately has nothing to really do with the case specifically outside of it serving as the standing example of something that people think is wrong. D-USA I think provides a firm example of the hypocrisy of the situation, in which private owners remove themselves from liability in their companies, yet complain about "spiritual" liability falling back on them because someone might want to buy some pills? It's kind of cheesy. Either the owners aren't liable for their company business or they are, but in the Hobby Lobby case they wanted it both ways. The law currently allows for that, but it's kind of a stupid law.

And that's just the specific example. More broadly why should my employer, who really has no business even knowing what my medical choices are unless they effect my work, have any right to dictate my healthcare? The conflict is born of the scheme in which employers end up paying a lot of the costs of healthcare premiums for their workforce but I don't think that's sufficient reason for a Hobby company to decide care options on the opinion of its non-Healthcare professional and non-liable owners. It's kind of grossly unfair to the workforce of that company.

At the same time I do find the idea of contraceptives being covered by health insurance to be kind of silly... but what if a company run by some Christian Scientists (or whoever it was) decides they don't want to cover vaccinations? That might not ever happen, but the precedent has been set and that's kind of a scary prospect.

The closely held private corporation term is definitely nebulous, so is the SCOTUS definition of obscenity. If a lot of people don't want employers dictating healthcare coverage then they really need to communicate with their representatives in Congress better. All employers are not required by law to provide health insurance and not all employees qualify for health insurance coverage for employers that are required to provide health insurance. Congress passed the Hyde Amendment in 1976 which Congress has renewed and expanded over time, most recently in the The No Tax Payer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017. Then Congress passed the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act in 1997 and in 2009 when the Affordable Care Act was passed it included the Stupak-Pitts Amendment http://housedocs.house.gov/rules/3962/Stupak3962_108.pdf
Add all that on top of a couple of centuries of court decisions regarding religious freedom guaranteed in Federal and State constitutions and that's how we got here.

Vaccinations are a tricky example because there are situations that meet the standard of a compelling State interest for vaccinations. It is legal for public school systems to require vaccinations of their students because it only takes one patient zero to start a polio epidemic, which supports the State's compelling interest to require polio vaccinations. Yet while there is support to require polio vaccinations for school students there isn't a program wherein the State gets to go door to door and forcibly inject polio vaccine into people's children because while there's a compelling interest for the State to vaccination children once they come into the public school system there isn't a compelling reason to violate all of the rights and laws that protect against such action.

If their was a global conflict and terrible people were in power in a country that was now trying to conquer the world and you got drafted into military service because we needed every able bodied person to help fight against this existential threat but you don't want to fight because your religious convictions make you a conscientious objector, that's ok. The State won't compel you to fight, you can take a noncombat role because your contribution as a combatant isn't significant enough to justify the State forcing you to violate your religious convictions.

The same principle is at work with Hobby Lobby or a Catholic Arch Diocese not paying for a specific abortifacient drug or procedure in an employee's health insurance plan. Not having something like abortifacient drugs covered by your employer provided health insurance plan doesn't prohibit you from accessing them it only requires that you pay for them. One of the drugs at issue in the Hobby Lobby case was the Plan B pill. That pill is available over the counter the same as hundreds of other medications and pills at a pharmacy/drugstore that aren't covered by health insurance plans because they're not contraceptives. What is the compelling State interest in forcing Hobby Lobby to cover the cost of over the counter contraceptives in violation of their religious convictions? Any woman, Hobby Lobby employee or not, with health insurance or not, can walk into the pharmacy and buy Plan B pills so what is the State's imperative in overruling the religious convictions of the Hobby Lobby owners?

What is the point of government? We don't want to live a nasty and brutal Hobbesian existence wherein might equals right. Government exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority and the most vulnerable minority is the individual. There should always be very high standard to establish a compelling State interest to force someone to take action against their will.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/30/brown-u-pulls-gender-dysphoria-study-worried-that-findings-might-invalidate-perspectives-transgender-community.html
Brown U shuts down it's own research on subject because the findings -
"might invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community".
Very disturbing. PC culture shutting down scientific investigation.

They should have pulled it because it was junk science, regardless of who might be upset by it.

And oh look, if you go beyond Fox News and look at the original source you find that:

1) The research wasn't shut down. The study was finished and published, the only thing pulled was a PR article talking about the study.

2) The uiniversity's statement on the subject explicitly refers to concerns about poor experiment design. It also explicitly mentions how the authors of the study presented their work, specifically their failure to mention the limitations of the study. Once you have that context it clearly becomes a case of "this was junk science and we should have thought more about the people who could be hurt by it", not "THE TRUTH REVEALS OUR PC SJW CULTURE WE MUST HIDE IT".

Of course this shouldn't be at all surprising, given the fact that your source was a Fox News article quoting from an article by Ben Shapiro.

So it's okay to pull an article because you don't like the results of a study that was conducted using standard research protocols by a University professor?

Junk Science. LOL. Young people are influenced by their friends? That is junk to you? WOW.