Coercing Pregnancy

Intimate partners coerce thousands of women in the United States into pregnancy each year through manipulation, threats of violence, or acts that deliberately interfere with the use of, or access to, contraception or abortion. Although many of these pregnancies occur within the context of otherwise abusive relationships, for others, pregnancy serves as a trigger for intimate partner violence. Beyond violence preceding or resulting from pregnancy, women who experience coerced pregnancies often suffer other physical, financial and emotional harms. Despite its correlation to domestic violence, reproductive coercion fits imperfectly, if at all, within our existing laws designed to combat domestic violence or rape. Although the harms of forced sex and, though to a slightly lesser extent, the harms of domestic violence, are well understood and accepted in our culture and our laws, the harm of experiencing a pregnancy through coercive acts remains largely invisible in both spheres, despite the prevalence of coerced pregnancies. This article begins by filling in the missing narrative of reproductive coercion by exploring the social and legal contours of how women are coerced into pregnancy, the harms that can result, and the deep correlation between such acts and domestic violence. It then explores how our cultural and legal conflation of pregnancy with sex, motherhood and even abortion, limits our ability to isolate and understand the experience of pregnancy coercion. This article concludes by considering how arming feminists and other advocates with an increased understanding of the interrelatedness between pregnancy, coercion, and intimate partner abuse can help to broaden domestic violence laws and policies, and reconceptualize pregnancy prevention as violence prevention

Pursuing Accountability for Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: The Peril (and Utility?) of Shame

This Article explores the use of shame as an accountability intervention for perpetrators of intimate partner abuse, urging caution against its legitimization. Shaming interventions—those designed to publicly humiliate, denigrate, or embarrass perpetrators or other criminal wrongdoers—are justified by some as legitimate legal and extralegal interventions. Judges have sentenced perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence (“IPV”) to hold signs reading, “This is the face of domestic abuse,” among other publicly humiliating sentences. Culturally, society increasingly uses the Internet and social media to expose perpetrators to public shame for their wrongdoing. On their face, shaming interventions appear rational: perpetrators often belittle, humiliate, and disgrace their partners within a larger pattern of physical abuse, and survivors often report feeling an abiding sense of shame as a result. Further, perpetrators are assigned en masse a dominant narrative about their motivations and traits as controlling, violent, and beyond reform. Consequently, they are cast into a category of individuals for whom traditional forms of rehabilitation are identified as ineffective and for whom shaming may be particularly apropos. However, even if stigmatizing perpetrators to achieve accountability has some legitimate purpose, any benefit is outweighed by the fact that shaming perpetrators undermines the goals of violence reduction and survivor safety. Internalized shame can lead to externalized violence, thereby increasing, rather than decreasing, a survivor’s risk of harm. Further, using shame to punish an act that is itself built on shame can blur clarity about socially acceptable behavior, have a profound social and economic impact on the individual shamed, and devastate a person’s dignity and sense of self-worth. Moreover, many perpetrators have cumulative shaming experiences in their pasts, intensifying the negative consequences that can flow from shaming interventions. To understand the unique risks of shaming in the context of IPV, this Article explores shame as a tool for achieving perpetrator accountability

Fate mapping identifies the origin of SHF/AHF progenitors in the chick primitive streak

Heart development depends on the spatio-temporally regulated contribution of progenitor cells from the primary, secondary and anterior heart fields. Primary heart field (PHF) cells are first recruited to form a linear heart tube; later, they contribute to the inflow myocardium of the four-chambered heart. Subsequently cells from the secondary (SHF) and anterior heart fields (AHF) are added to the heart tube and contribute to both the inflow and outflow myocardium. In amniotes, progenitors of the linear heart tube have been mapped to the anterior-middle region of the early primitive streak. After ingression, these cells are located within bilateral heart fields in the lateral plate mesoderm. On the other hand SHF/AHF field progenitors are situated anterior to the linear heart tube, however, the origin and location of these progenitors prior to the development of the heart tube remains elusive. Thus, an unresolved question in the process of cardiac development is where SHF/AHF progenitors originate from during gastrulation and whether they come from a region in the primitive streak distinct from that which generates the PHF. To determine the origin and location of SHF/AHF progenitors we used vital dye injection and tissue grafting experiments to map the location and ingression site of outflow myocardium progenitors in early primitive streak stage chicken embryos. Cells giving rise to the AHF ingressed from a rostral region of the primitive streak, termed region ‘A’. During development these cells were located in the cranial paraxial mesoderm and in the pharyngeal mesoderm. Furthermore we identified region ‘B’, located posterior to ‘A’, which gave rise to progenitors that contributed to the primary heart tube and the outflow tract. Our studies identify two regions in the early primitive streak, one which generates cells of the AHF and a second from which cardiac progenitors of the PHF and SHF emerge.Esther Camp, Susanne Dietrich, Andrea Münsterber

Contamination Control Handbook for Ground Fluid Systems Final Technical Publication

Handbook for contamination control of aerospace ground fluid systems and portable equipmen

Automatic signal range selector for metering devices Patent

Voltage range selection apparatus for sensing and applying voltages to electronic instruments without loading signal sourc

Effect of an Intervention to Improve Smoking Cessation Treatment in a Federally Qualified Healthcare Clinic

Abstract Significant progress has been made in the reduction of tobacco use in the United States, but the smoking prevalence among the socially and economically disadvantaged populations (i.e. individuals who are homeless, uninsured, LGBT, and living with HIV) is significantly higher than the general population (CDC, 2018b). As a result, these vulnerable populations carry a disproportionate burden of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity (CDC, 2018b). There is a cost-effective and evidence-based treatment for tobacco use dependence (Fiore et al, 2008), but the delivery by primary care providers to this population is inconsistent (Tyman, Bonevski, Paul, & Bryant, 2014). This study focused on determining whether the delivery of a multicomponent intervention (i.e. educational session, quick reference materials, and prompts in the electronic health records) to the health care providers (n=13) at a federally qualified health care clinic would result in an improvement in the percentage of behavioral health referrals and pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation treatment. A retrospective electronic medical record review of the 8 weeks prior to the intervention, and 8 weeks after the intervention, was conducted to examine changes in provider compliance with smoking cessation treatment guidelines. The data collected suggested that there was a statistically significant increase in compliance with the delivery of the qualifying treatment (Z=-2.09, p=.037) following the intervention. The study also examined the relationship between demographic characteristics of providers and improvement in provider compliance with no significant positive correlations. Additional research is needed to examine whether this improvement in compliance can be sustained at six months

Creating Space for Silence in Law School Collaborations

Law school programs are increasingly expanding collaborative experiences for their students. In many clinical programs, collaboration -- through team pairings and group work – has been the norm, and gradually, collaborative work is being developed throughout the doctrinal law school curriculum. This trend fits within a broader societal emphasis on a collaborative model of working and learning. In both professional and educational settings, collaboration is viewed as critical to the success of ideas and products. Learning theory consistently identifies learning as being “inherently social” and best retained when engaged in with others. And, collaboration can substantially benefit the final work product and dramatically increase professional and educational satisfaction. However, when the collaborative process is not engaged in with intention and when not open to a variety of practices, collaboration can inhibit learning, productivity, and creativity. Research consistently finds that individuals who have an opportunity to consider problems on their own before collaborating outperform those whose ideas are generated exclusively in a group setting. Despite this, many collaborations value a team process that tends to isolate and ignore individuals who do not speak up quickly or easily, many with introverted personality styles, as well as others who do not fit within the “Extrovert Ideal.” The Extrovert Ideal rests on an assumption that an extrovert’s approach to group work, learning, and decision-making is the standard towards which all individuals should strive. This assumption may be particularly problematic for law students and lawyers who, as a group, include a higher percentage of individuals who identify as introverted than the general population. This article considers whether law faculty are giving enough thought to the collaborative learning opportunities that are becoming a new normal in legal education and the legal profession. It considers how as currently executed, law school collaborations may not maximize student learning because they are grounded in a process that often interferes with the creation of ideas and the learning and environmental preferences because of rules that work best for only some -- not all -- students. This article concludes by offering concrete collaborative methods that allow space for intentional silence and reflection, and suggestions for helping students identify their own collaborative identity

From Experiencing Abuse to Seeking Protection: Examining the Shame of Intimate Partner Violence

Shame permeates the experience of intimate partner violence (IPV). People who perpetrate IPV commonly use tactics designed to cause shame in their partners, including denigrating their dignity, undermining their autonomy, or harming their reputation. Many IPV survivors report an abiding sense of shame as a result of their victimization—from a lost sense of self, to self-blame, to fear of (or actual) social judgment. When seeking help for abuse, many survivors are directed to, or otherwise encounter, persons or institutions that reinforce rather than mitigate their shame. Survivors with marginalized social identities often must contend not only with the shame of IPV victimization, but also with the shame that follows being stigmatized or otherwise assigned inaccurate or incomplete “identities.” Understanding how these layers of shame can shape a survivor’s experience matters. Shame can be a destructive harm that devastates a person’s sense of self-worth. It can lead to long-term psychological injury and can be both a source and outcome of trauma. A desire to reduce shame’s damaging impact can cause survivors to utilize coping behaviors that may be self-protective, but profoundly misunderstood by the people and institutions to whom they turn for help. Included among those institutions is the civil legal system. Protection orders are the most common legal intervention for IPV and can be critical tools for responding to it. Yet, to obtain a protection order, survivors must enter a process that often deprives them of their privacy and ability to control their self-image—experiences anchored in shame. Without understanding shame’s behavioral and psychological effects, survivors risk having their claims of victimization discredited, harming their ability to obtain safety and relief. This Article explores these individual, social, and institutional dimensions of shame. It examines how those who work or interact with survivors can better understand the shame that results from traumatic experiences, and the trauma that results from shame-intensive ones. This Article further explores strategies to reduce the shame that can pervade civil litigation. These strategies include prioritizing survivor dignity and narrative control—critical antidotes to the injury of shame

From Experiencing Abuse to Seeking Protection: Examining the Shame of Intimate Partner Violence

Shame permeates the experience of intimate partner violence (IPV). People who perpetrate IPV commonly use tactics designed to cause shame in their partners, including denigrating their dignity, undermining their autonomy, or harming their reputation. Many IPV survivors report an abiding sense of shame as a result of their victimization—from a lost sense of self, to self-blame, to fear of (or actual) social judgment. When seeking help for abuse, many survivors are directed to, or otherwise encounter, persons or institutions that reinforce rather than mitigate their shame. Survivors with marginalized social identities often must contend not only with the shame of IPV victimization, but also with the shame that follows being stigmatized or otherwise assigned inaccurate or incomplete “identities.” Understanding how these layers of shame can shape a survivor’s experience matters. Shame can be a destructive harm that devastates a person’s sense of self-worth. It can lead to long-term psychological injury and can be both a source and outcome of trauma. A desire to reduce shame’s damaging impact can cause survivors to utilize coping behaviors that may be self-protective, but profoundly misunderstood by the people and institutions to whom they turn for help. Included among those institutions is the civil legal system. Protection orders are the most common legal intervention for IPV and can be critical tools for responding to it. Yet, to obtain a protection order, survivors must enter a process that often deprives them of their privacy and ability to control their self-image—experiences anchored in shame. Without understanding shame’s behavioral and psychological effects, survivors risk having their claims of victimization discredited, harming their ability to obtain safety and relief. This Article explores these individual, social, and institutional dimensions of shame. It examines how those who work or interact with survivors can better understand the shame that results from traumatic experiences, and the trauma that results from shame-intensive ones. This Article further explores strategies to reduce the shame that can pervade civil litigation. These strategies include prioritizing survivor dignity and narrative control—critical antidotes to the injury of shame