The Legality and Morality of Using Deadly Force to Protect Unborn Children from Abortionists

Is killing abortionists as they arrive at abortuaries to perform regularly scheduled abortions a legally justifiable use of force in defense of another person\u27s life? Under commonly accepted criminal law principles of justification, a person normally is entitled to use force—even deadly force—when necessary to save a person\u27s life from an aggressor bent on taking that life. But because Roe and its progeny have made abortion a constitutionally protected right, courts would predictably hold that using force against an abortionist is not legally justified, despite the fact that the motive for that force is to defend innocent human life. Even if intentionally killing an abortionist can be legally justified, is it morally justified? Roman Catholics apply Catholic moral teaching to this question. That teaching embodies universal moral principles that are useful to anybody—Catholic or non-Catholic—who cares to analyze the moral issue. Based on Catholic moral teaching, intentionally killing abortionists as Griffin and Hill did is morally wrong, at least at a time when we are not in a state of justified rebellion. For now, there are alternatives to violence—particularly prayer and the uncompromising proclamation of the truth about abortion—that are more appropriate, prudent, and in the long run, effective than escalating the violence that abortionists, spurred by the Supreme Court, have started

The Legality and Morality of Using Deadly Force to Protect Unborn Children from Abortionists

Is killing abortionists as they arrive at abortuaries to perform regularly scheduled abortions a legally justifiable use of force in defense of another person\u27s life? Under commonly accepted criminal law principles of justification, a person normally is entitled to use force—even deadly force—when necessary to save a person\u27s life from an aggressor bent on taking that life. But because Roe and its progeny have made abortion a constitutionally protected right, courts would predictably hold that using force against an abortionist is not legally justified, despite the fact that the motive for that force is to defend innocent human life. Even if intentionally killing an abortionist can be legally justified, is it morally justified? Roman Catholics apply Catholic moral teaching to this question. That teaching embodies universal moral principles that are useful to anybody—Catholic or non-Catholic—who cares to analyze the moral issue. Based on Catholic moral teaching, intentionally killing abortionists as Griffin and Hill did is morally wrong, at least at a time when we are not in a state of justified rebellion. For now, there are alternatives to violence—particularly prayer and the uncompromising proclamation of the truth about abortion—that are more appropriate, prudent, and in the long run, effective than escalating the violence that abortionists, spurred by the Supreme Court, have started

Unfolding the Pharmacokinetic and Exposure Variability from Overall Interindividual Variability for 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-ρ-Dioxin (OCDD) and Mercury

There is variability in the level of environmental chemicals in individual's bodies. This variability is composed of exposure variability and pharmacokinetic parameter variability. In the present study, two compounds, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-cctachlorodibenzo-ρ-dioxin (OCDD) and mercury, were examined. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were used to represent overall variability. Models were used to predict pharmacokinetic variability. The variability in exposure was unfolded from the pharmacokinetic variability and the contribution of each type of variability to overall variability was determined. The results showed that most of the overall variability observed was due to exposure variability.Master of Science in Public Healt

Choosing and using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in haemophilia

The management of pain and inflammation in haemophilic arthropathy is challenging due to the lack of anti-inflammatory analgesic agents perfectly suitable for this population. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the management of arthritis due to their analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects. Their use in persons with haemophilia (PWH), however, is limited due to increased risk of bleeding mainly from the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract. Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective NSAIDs which have comparable analgesic effect to traditional NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) but with less UGI bleeding have been considered to be a suitable option for treatment of haemophilic arthropathy. COX-2 inhibitors, however, have an increased in the risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease. Although the atherosclerotic burden in PWH is similar to that in the general population, the risk of CV-related deaths is lower. PWH have a higher risk of GI bleeding and lower risk of thrombotic disease compared to general population. Therefore, when PWH require anti-inflammatory/analgesic agents, it seems reasonable to use lowest dose of COX-2 inhibitors for the shortest period together with a proton pump inhibitor. Helicobacter pylori infection should be tested for and eradicated prior to starting NSAID treatment in PWH. Furthermore, regular blood pressure and renal function test monitoring is required during COX-2 inhibitor treatment

Supporting the Well-being of Women in the YWCA Southern Arizona Communities: A Community-based Participatory Research Approach for the Identification of Women's Strengths and Needs in the Aftermath of COVID-19

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic unveiled a disparate negative impact in communities that are historically misrepresented, marginalized and under-resourced in the United States. In the YWCA Southern Arizona community, women reported facing a culmination of barriers to their health and well-being, and in response were networking to strengthen their own support systems. Data indicates that in the borderlands of southern Arizona, community members experience racism and discrimination in various forms including the quality of healthcare services, lack of culturally-informed care including deficits in ability to meet diverse linguistic needs, and inequitable access to needed health resources. Additionally, nonprofit organizations like Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) received numerous requests for assistance regarding these types of issues. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate types of systemic barriers faced, and networks of support that organically grew as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and sought community-based recommendations to assist the leadership of YWCA Southern Arizona in building on existing strengths and community assets to improve policies, services, and partnerships that foster health and well-being. METHODS: To address Specific Aim 1, a Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach was implemented into an exploratory mixed-methods convergent study to identify systemic barriers faced and networks of support that developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected through a quantitative survey (N=33), and through qualitative semi-structured interviews with YWCA community women and staff (N=18) and focus groups with YWCA community women (N=15). Data analysis, interpretation, and translation to recommendations for policy, services, and partnerships were completed for Specific Aim 2, which informed the development of assessment deliverables for the community partner, YWCA Southern Arizona. RESULTS: Study findings revealed that 60% of study participants have limited or no access to healthcare services, over half the women have experienced discrimination that contributes to the exclusion from needed resources, and 85% of participants report feeling stressed in day-to-day circumstances. Further, the most significant health concern reported by participants is the prevalent struggle with mental health. Participants also reported that the greatest promoter of health is community social support, and acknowledged high levels of resilience through individual and collective strengths. Study participants developed community-directed recommendations that informed four policy initiatives, three strategies to improve services, and three suggested approaches for enhanced partnerships to fortify the health and well-being of the community overall. An assessment report with these recommended proposals, supported by data, were presented to YWCA Southern Arizona leadership for consideration and implementation. CONCLUSION: YWCA Southern Arizona’s program model historically provides support and resources for women through their mission to eliminate racism and empower women. The organizational priorities align with best practices of improving the health and well-being of their community and actively listening to the lived experiences and expertise of the women they serve. The organizational leadership team has the potential to collaborate with the women in their community as they increase communication, establish improved policies, services, and partnerships, and build the YWCA Southern Arizona community’s growing health and well-being potential.Release after 07/14/202