A Balancing Act: Public Health, COVID-19, and the Economic Due Process “Right to Work”

During the infamous Lochner era (1897–1937), courts invalidated hundreds of regulatory measures on economic liberty grounds, doing untold damage to public health. Two vehicles have recently emerged by which the Supreme Court could re-enter this long-dead line of “economic due process” jurisprudence: first, via challenges to particularly burdensome professional licensing requirements; and second, via challenges to business closure orders resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. This article concludes that the Supreme Court’s re‑entry into the “right to work” conversation, albeit unlikely, could help prevent certain unduly burdensome licensing requirements from surviving simply on protectionist grounds. Nonetheless, to protect the public’s health, the Court must avoid a full return to Lochner

COVID’s Counterpunch: State Legislative Assaults on PublicHealth Emergency Powers

Amid the most impactful health crisis in over a century, COVID’s “counterpunch” entails aggressive efforts by numerous state legislatures to diminish state and local public health emergency powers. It is an incredulous movement facially supported by a need to appropriately balance economic interests and rights with communal health objectives. At its political core, however, is a “power grab” by legislatures to free their constituents from extensive emergency powers (e.g., social distancing, assembly limits, and business closures). Never mind the fact that these interventions, when used effectively and constitutionally, save lives and reduce morbidity. Public health agents and activists are understandably concerned about diminutions of their express and discretionary emergency powers. Yet affirmative and strategic uses of existing legal remedies examined in this brief commentary may blunt the impact of these legislative proposals

COVID’s Counterpunch: State Legislative Assaults on PublicHealth Emergency Powers

Amid the most impactful health crisis in over a century, COVID’s “counterpunch” entails aggressive efforts by numerous state legislatures to diminish state and local public health emergency powers. It is an incredulous movement facially supported by a need to appropriately balance economic interests and rights with communal health objectives. At its political core, however, is a “power grab” by legislatures to free their constituents from extensive emergency powers (e.g., social distancing, assembly limits, and business closures). Never mind the fact that these interventions, when used effectively and constitutionally, save lives and reduce morbidity. Public health agents and activists are understandably concerned about diminutions of their express and discretionary emergency powers. Yet affirmative and strategic uses of existing legal remedies examined in this brief commentary may blunt the impact of these legislative proposals

Outcomes of a Therapeutic Fly-Fishing Program for Veterans with Combat-Related Disabilities: A Community-Based Rehabilitation Initiative

The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of a therapeutic fly-fishing program for veterans with combat-related disabilities. A total of 40 veterans participated in the 4-day therapeutic fly-fishing program and this study. The outcomes examined included reducing symptoms of posttraumatic stress (PTS), depression, perceived stress, functional impairment (i.e., work, relationships, physical, and everyday life), increasing self-determination, and leisure satisfaction. Each research participant completed pretest, posttest, and 3-month follow-up questionnaires. Repeated measures MANOVA and ANOVA were conducted to examine the differences between the three time points on each outcomes. The results indicated significant decreases from the pretest to posttest for symptoms of PTS, depression, perceived stress, and functional impairment, and an increase in leisure satisfaction from pretest to 3-month follow-up. These results highlight the use of therapeutic recreation programming for veterans with disabilities as a holistic approach to treatment and recovery

If you don\u27t measure it, you won\u27t improve it: The advancement of recreational therapy through collaborative research

The purpose of this article is to describe the impact collaboration between recreational therapy (RT) researchers and practitioners can have on clinical outcomes and evidence-based practice. Although collaboration is not a new concept, few individuals develop partnerships designed to measure the clinical outcomes associated with RT. The primary reason collaborations are not developed is due to misconceptions from both the researcher and the practitioner on how the collaborative research process impacts direct client care. Furthermore, budget cuts, lack of time, and limited resources can make it challenging for successful collaborations to develop. This article will define collaboration, identify how collaborative partnerships advance the development of clinical outcomes, describe common challenges associated with successful collaborations between practitioners and researchers, and provide the seven steps used to accomplish a successful collaboration

Veterans’ Perceptions of Benefits and Important Program Components of a Therapeutic Fly-Fishing Program

While evidence is emerging for therapeutic recreation programs for veterans with combat-related disabilities, minimal research has been done to understand participants’ perceptions of these programs. The intent of this study was to examine the perceptions of veterans with combat-related disabilities following participation in a therapeutic fly-fishing program. Six focus group discussions were conducted and the constant comparison method of analysis was used to discover the two primary themes of Perceived Benefits and Important Program Components. Based on these findings, implications for therapeutic recreation practice are included