Författare: Rss .

Over a three-year period beginning in 2021, 353 petitions were filed under Colorado’s red flag law, and 39% of those petitions led to firearms being relinquished, according to research our group published in Preventive Medicine Reports.

Red flag laws are also known as extreme risk protection orders. These orders temporarily bar individuals deemed by a judge to be at risk of violence from buying or possessing firearms.

We found that 54.6% of petitions across Colorado were filed by law enforcement. These petitions were granted 94.3% of the time.

Petitions filed by people outside of law enforcement were granted just 35% of the time.

When the petitions of either type are not granted, the individuals involved are allowed to keep their firearms.

Thirty-seven percent of all petitions in Colorado between 2020 and 2022 were filed in counties that made proclamations against red flag laws, calling themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries.”

The name Second Amendment sanctuaries is modeled after the term “sanctuary cities,” a term used by local governments taking a stand against immigration enforcement.

These declarations are intended to send a political message against extreme risk protection orders. Supporters of the declarations are expressing concerns that the laws violate the U.S. Constitution, subvert due process and undermine residents’ ability to protect themselves. However, anecdotes have highlighted cases where protective orders have been sought and granted in many of the 37 sanctuaries. Our study provides data to back up those anecdotes.

In Colorado, fewer petitions are granted in sanctuaries possibly because the percentage of orders filed by police is significantly lower. But red flag laws are still being used – with some notable differences.

The petitions filed and granted in sanctuary jurisdictions are more serious than those filed in nonsanctuaries. Nearly 1 in 5 involved a shooter threatening to kill at least three other people in addition to themselves. More than 90% included threats to shoot specific people such as family members, partners or law enforcement officers.

In many of these cases, the sense of danger was heightened because the person was reportedly experiencing hallucinations, had a history of contact with the police or was misusing drugs or alcohol.

Given that 60% of firearm deaths are suicides, we were surprised that just 8% of the petitions included only threats of self-harm.

Why it matters

While red flag laws show promise as a way to prevent firearm suicides and other violence in the 21 states plus D.C. where they’re in effect, at least 1,200 jurisdictions across the U.S. have made political declarations against their use.

When Colorado passed the Deputy Zackari Parrish Violence Prevention Act in 2018, it immediately sparked controversy. The law went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020. It initially allowed only certain people to file petitions: law enforcement officers, plus relatives, roommates and co-parents of the respondent. In 2023, it was expanded to allow health care and behavioral health professionals, educators and district attorneys to petition.

Nearly 4 in 10 Colorado counties have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, but red flag laws are still in effect.
Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

How we did our work

Our group at the University of Colorado School of Medicine’s Firearm Injury Prevention Initiative has been gathering petitions and court documents associated with every extreme risk petition filed in Colorado since they became available.

This allowed us to describe the kinds of cases where the risk of violence was seen as so severe that filings were made. The law is not explicit, so this threshold has been fuzzy – leaving a lot of discretion to judges. Our data helps shade in when a petition is likely to be brought and when it is likely to be approved.

We were also able to compare the use of extreme risk petitions in sanctuary counties with their use in other counties.

What still isn’t known

The use of extreme risk petitions in counties where they’re politically unpopular raises further questions. For example, do judges in sanctuary counties set a higher bar for granting a petition than in other jurisdictions? Does a sanctuary designation discourage law enforcement from filing petitions even when they have merit? Läs mer…

In her role as former chief executive of World Wrestling Entertainment, Linda McMahon oversaw an enterprise that popularized the “takedown” for millions of wrestling fans. But as President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of education, the Trump loyalist may be tasked with taking down the very department Trump has asked her to lead.

If Trump does dismantle the Department of Education as he has promised to do, he will have succeeded at something that President Ronald Reagan vowed to do in 1980. Just like Trump, Reagan campaigned on abolishing the department, which at the time was only a year old. Since then, the Republican Party platform has repeatedly called for eliminating the Education Department, which oversees a range of programs and initiatives. These include special funding for schools in low-income communities – known as Title I – and safeguarding the rights of students with disabilities.

As an education policy researcher who has studied the federal role in addressing student-equity issues, I see the path to shuttering the department as filled with political and practical obstacles. Republicans may therefore opt to instead pursue a series of proposals they see as more feasible and impactful, while still furthering their bigger-picture education agenda.

To better understand how the proposal to eliminate the Education Department would fit within the larger educational agenda of the incoming administration, I believe it’s helpful to revisit the history of the Education Department and the role it has played over the past five decades.

Department of Education history and roles

By the time Congress established the department in 1979,
the federal government was already an established player in educational policy and funding.

For instance, the Higher Education Act of 1965 began the federal student loan program. In 1972, Congress created the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant, the predecessor program to today’s Pell Grants. The G.I. Bill of 1944, which, among other things, funded higher education for World War II veterans, preceded them both.

At the K-12 level, federal involvement in vocational education began with the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. Federal attention to math, science and foreign language education began in 1958 with the National Defense Education Act.

Two laws passed during the Lyndon Johnson administration then gave the federal government its modern foothold in education: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The 1964 law provided antidiscrimination protections enforced by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. The 1965 law, which is currently reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, includes Title I, which sends extra funding to schools with high populations of low-income students.

In 1975, Congress added the law currently known as the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, or IDEA. The law helps schools provide special education services for students with disabilities. IDEA also sets forth rules designed to ensure that all students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education.

Department had early Republican support

When Congress created the Education Department, it divided the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into two agencies. One was the Education Department. The other was Health and Human Services, also known as HHS. Although President Jimmy Carter championed the move, it was bipartisan. The Senate bill to create the new department had 14 Republican co-sponsors.

Within a year, however, support for and opposition to the Education Department had become strongly partisan. Reagan campaigned on eliminating what he referred to as “President Carter’s new bureaucratic boondoggle.”

Those bureaucracies, however, existed before Carter and the new department. The only major addition was the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, which served primarily as the research arm of the Education Department. That office has since been replaced by the Institute of Education Sciences.

Congressional support needed

To dissolve the Education Department, both houses of Congress would have to agree, which is unlikely. In 2023, an amendment was proposed in the House to shut down the department. It failed by a vote of 161-265, with 60 Republicans joining all Democrats in opposing the measure.

Even assuming that sufficient pressure were exerted on Republicans in 2025 to garner almost complete Republican House support, the bill would likely need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster – meaning that at least seven Democrats would have to support termination.

But what would such termination entail? The department’s functions and programs would need to be assigned to new institutional homes, since terminating a program’s department doesn’t terminate the program. That said, this shuffling process would likely be complicated and chaotic, harming important programs for K-12 and university students.

While details about what reorganization would look like remain to be seen, one option was proposed by Trump during his first term: merging the Education Department with the Labor Department.

Another approach is set forth in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a detailed policy blueprint that, among other things, specifies landing places for the Education Department’s major functions and programs. A CNN review found that over 100 people involved with Project 2025 worked in the first Trump administration.

The Project 2025 blueprint calls for the lion’s share of programs, including Title I and IDEA, to be moved to HHS – which already administers Head Start. Most vocational education programs would be moved to the Labor Department. The Office for Civil Rights would be moved to the Justice Department. And the Pell Grant program and the student loan program would be moved to the Treasury Department.

Part of a larger education agenda

In the scenario where existing Education Department programs are transferred to other agencies, those programs could continue without being closed or drastically cut. But Trump and Project 2025 have articulated a set of plans that do make radical changes. Trump has said he supports a federal voucher – or a “universal school choice” – plan, likely funded through federal tax credits. This idea is set forth in the proposed Educational Choice for Children Act, which is backed by Project 2025. Perhaps tellingly, Trump’s announcement of the McMahon nomination highlighted school-choice goals; it did not mention abolishing the department.

President Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, right, listens as 25th Administrator of the US Small Business Administration, Linda McMahon, left, speaks during a press conference in Swannanoa, North Carolina in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene.
The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025 also lays out other changes and program cuts, including ending the Head Start early childhood education program and phasing out Title I over 10 years, and converting most IDEA funds into a voucher or “savings account” for eligible parents.

Beyond these initiatives, Trump’s campaign shared his plan to target a variety of culture-war issues. This includes cutting federal funding for any school or program that involves “critical race theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto our children.”

What we can expect

My expectation is that the Trump administration’s most likely and immediate changes will be in the form of executive orders that alter how laws will be implemented. For example, Trump may use an executive order to remove protections for transgender students.

Subsequently, I also expect some congressional budgetary changes to education programs. Based on past votes, I expect overwhelming but not universal Republican congressional support for Trump’s educational agenda. Using the budget reconciliation process, which circumvents the filibuster, a majority vote can make changes to revenue or spending. Accordingly, Congress may agree to program cuts and perhaps even to move some programmatic funding into education vouchers for individual parents.

As for closing the Education Department, which probably would not qualify for the reconciliation process, Secretary-designate McMahon may find that takedown to be a politically difficult one to achieve. Läs mer…

For years, the drug phenylephrine has been a popular choice for relieving nasal congestion, however, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering removing oral phenylephrine medicines from pharmacy shelves. Recent FDA findings suggest it lacks effectiveness.

Phenylephrine became widely used in cold and flu products as a safer alternative to pseudoephedrine. While pseudoephedrine is effective, it carries some misuse risks – with criminals using it to make methamphetamine. However, recent studies question whether phenylephrine is effective when taken orally.

In the UK and other countries, there is now a discussion about the ethics of continuing to sell it. So, should the UK take action?

There are pros and cons to removing phenylephrine from UK shelves. On one hand, continuing to sell a potentially ineffective product could harm public trust in over-the-counter (OTC) medicines. Consumers expect these products to be both safe and effective – not just safe – so evidence against phenylephrine may undo that trust.

As studies continue to question the effectiveness of oral phenylephrine, some experts suggest it may be time to reconsider its place in the UK. Fortunately, alternatives exist. As mentioned, pseudoephedrine is effective as a nasal decongestant, but it comes with purchase restrictions. Phenylephrine nasal sprays may also offer more direct relief.

Phenylephrine and pseudoephedrine both relieve nasal congestion by constricting blood vessels in the nasal passages, which reduces swelling and helps ease breathing. However, their effectiveness depends on how well the drug reaches these target tissues.

Pseudoephedrine is generally considered the more effective option, enters the bloodstream and reaches nasal tissues, acting directly on blood vessels to reduce congestion. Phenylephrine, though, is less effective when taken orally, as it is largely broken down before it can reach the nasal tissues in sufficient amounts.

When swallowed, phenylephrine is quickly broken down by the liver and gut, a process called “first-pass metabolism”, which significantly reduces the amount that reaches the bloodstream and nasal tissues.

Because little phenylephrine survives this process, it doesn’t effectively reduce swelling in the nasal blood vessels, offering limited congestion relief. Research from several studies shows little evidence that oral phenylephrine effectively relieves nasal congestion. Findings suggest it may work no better than a placebo.

When swallowed, phenylephrine breaks down quickly in the stomach.
Carlos David / Alamy Stock Photo

Phenylephrine works better as a nasal spray, acting primarily on nasal linings with minimal absorption into the bloodstream. But prolonged use of decongestant sprays can lead to “rebound congestion”, a condition where nasal passages become increasingly congested as the effect of the spray wears off, often worsening symptoms over time.

The medication causes blood vessels in the nasal passages to become less responsive over time. This can create a cycle of dependency and congestion. To avoid this, these sprays are recommended for short-term use only.

While some products recommend limiting use to seven days, many health professionals suggest keeping it to three days to reduce the risk of rebound congestion.

Still available in the UK – for now

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has stated that no new safety concerns have been identified with phenylephrine. However, the agency continues to monitor its safety and effectiveness.

While it is unclear if the MHRA will conduct a formal review, such a move would align with evidence-based standards and help protect consumer trust.

With phenylephrine’s effectiveness now in question, consumers might consider other options. Alternatives like pseudoephedrine and nasal sprays for short-term use can offer reliable relief. Läs mer…

The federal government today introduced into parliament legislation for its social media ban for people under 16 years.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said:

This is about protecting young people, not punishing or isolating them, and letting parents know we’re in their corner when it comes to supporting their children’s health and wellbeing.

Up until now details of how the ban would actually work have been scarce. Today’s bill provides a more complete picture.

But many ambiguities – and problems – still remain.

What’s in the bill?

Today’s bill is an amendment of the Online Safety Act.

It introduces a new definition for an “age-restricted social media platform” whose sole or significant purpose is to enable users to post material online and interact socially with other users.

This includes platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat, but also many more minor platforms and services. It includes an exclusion framework that exempts messaging apps such as WhatsApp, online gaming platforms and services with the “primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users” (for example, Google Classroom).

The bill will attempt to force owners of newly defined age-restricted platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent people under 16 from having a user account. This will include young people who have an existing account. There are no grandfather provisions so it is unclear how platforms will be required to manage the many millions of existing users who are now set to be excluded and deplatformed.

The bill is also vague in specifying how social media platforms must comply with their obligation to prevent under 16s from having an account – only that it “will likely involve some form of age assurance”.

Oddly, the bill won’t stop people under 16 from watching videos on YouTube or seeing content on Facebook – it is primarily designed to stop them from making an account. This also means that the wider ecology of anonymous web-based forums, including problematic spaces like 4chan, are likely excluded.

Age-restricted platforms that fail to prevent children under 16 accessing their platforms will face fines of nearly A$50 million.

However, the government acknowledges that it cannot completely stop children under 16 from accessing platforms such as Instagram and Facebook.

Australia should be prepared for the reality that some people will break the rules, or slip through the cracks.

The legislation will take effect “at least” 12 months after it has passed parliament.

Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland introduces the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill in the House of Representatives at Parliament House.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

How did we get to this point?

The government’s move to ban under 16s from social media – an idea other countries such as the United Kingdom are now considering – has been heavily influenced by News Corp’s “Let Them Be Kids” campaign. This campaign included sensitive news reports about young people who have used social media and, tragically, died by suicide.

The government has also faced pressure from state governments and the federal opposition to introduce this bill.

The New South Wales and South Australian governments last month held a summit to explore the impact of social media on the mental health of young people. However, Crikey today revealed that the event was purposefully set up to create momentum for the ban. Colleagues who attended the event were shocked at the biased and unbalanced nature of the discussion.

The announcement and tabling of the bill today also preempts findings from a parliamentary inquiry into the impact of social media on Australian society. The inquiry only tabled its report and recommendations in parliament this week. Notably, it stopped short of recommending a ban on social media for youth.

There are evidence-based alternatives to a ban

The government claims “a minimum age of 16 allows access to social media after young people are outside the most vulnerable adolescent stage”.

However, multiple experts have already expressed concerns about banning young people from social media platforms. In October more than 140 experts, me included, wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in which we said “a ‘ban’ is too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively”.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has now added its voice to the opposition to the ban. In a statement released today it said:

Given the potential for these laws to significantly interfere with the rights of children and young people, the Commission has serious reservations about the proposed social media ban.

In its report, the parliamentary inquiry into the impact of social media on Australian society made a number of recommendations to reduce online harm. These included introducing a “duty of care” onto digital platforms – a measure the government is also moving ahead with, and one which is more in line with best evidence.

The inquiry also recommended the government introduce regulations which ensure users of social media platforms have greater control over what content they see. This would include, for example, users having the ability to change, reset, or turn off their personal algorithms.

Another recommendation is for the government to prioritise the creation of the Children’s Online Privacy Code. This code will better protect the personal information of children online.

Taken together, the three measures above manage the risks and benefits of children’s digital media. They build from an evidence base, one that critically includes the voices and perspectives of children and parents. The concern then is how a ban undermines these efforts and possibly gives platforms a hall pass to avoid obligations under these stronger media policies. Läs mer…

Our analysis of Indonesia’s social forestry permits shows that women remain underrepresented in forest management bodies despite efforts to boost their presence, leaving them out of decisions about their forests.

Social forestry redistributes forest management rights to local communities to advance sustainability and local livelihoods. In 2021, the country revised its social forestry regulations to allow one family representative to participate in social forestry management bodies, ‘giving equal opportunity to both men and women.’

However, our analysis of 400 most recent social forestry permit documents, combined with extended, multi-method field research at four sites, shows that women are often excluded from management bodies but are more involved in social forestry business groups (Kelompok Usaha Perhutanan Sosial or KUPS). These groups focus on the processing and sale of forest products.

This low level of participation in management excludes women from decisions about who receives benefits such as land for cultivation, seedlings, equipment, extension training, and technical information provided by the government and NGOs. The absence of women’s presence may deepen local inequalities and hamper effective forest management.

Gender gaps in social forestry

We reviewed the 400 most recent decree letters issued in 2024 that granted forestry management rights. These included 100 permits each for the managements of Village Forests (Hutan Desa) and Community Forests (Hutan Kemasyarakatan) and their respective KUPS (Table 1). Village Forests are rights collectively held and managed by village administrations, while Community Forests are issued to specific farmer or community groups.

Our analysis found that across Indonesia women are often underrepresented in management groups. On average, only 19.54% of members in Village Forest’s management bodies were women, with participation ranging from none to 80%. This number was even lower in Community Forests, averaging 13.95% women, with some groups having no female members and others up to 56.52%.

However, the available data often lacked details about gender in KUPS-related decrees. Only 19 of 100 Village Forests’ KUPS decrees and 23 of 100 Community Forests’ KUPS decrees included this information.

When gender data was included, women were more involved in KUPS of Village Forests, with an average of 46.32% participation. In contrast, their participation in Community Forests’ KUPS was just 13.06%.

These numbers show that progress in gender representation in Indonesia’s social forestry is mixed. While women are more active in economic activities linked to KUPS, they are still sidelined in formal management roles and decision-making.

Understanding uneven participation

Our field research also highlighted how women and men are participating in, and deriving benefits from, social forestry in Indonesia, while exploring factors influencing women’s (and men’s) involvement.

We focused on four social forestry sites — two Village Forests (Sintang; West Kalimantan province, and Muara Enim; South Sumatra province) and two Community Forests (Gunungkidul; Special Region of Yogyakarta, and Enrekang; South Sulawesi province). We selected sites that reflect different levels of women’s participation.

Table 2 highlights a disparity: while women actively engage in forest land use — such as collecting and processing non-timber forest products and cultivating social forestry land — in two sites (Enrekang and Muara Enim) they are not involved in management bodies where decisions about land use, forest resources and benefit distribution are made.

For example, Masna (pseudonym), a farmer and forest user from Enrekang, shared that her involvement in her village’s forest management body (Kelompok Tani Hutan) was limited to preparing snacks while men made decisions.

Why does this happen?

Deeply rooted gender norms significantly limit women’s involvement in social forestry in some sites. These norms often designate unpaid household and care-giving duties to women, positioning men as the primary decision-makers. This affects women’s confidence and participation in village meetings, where forest management decisions are made reduce women’s participation.

Our findings align with earlier studies showing how gender roles, influenced by discourse promoted by the New Order regime, continue to shape these practices of recognising men as breadwinners and landowners, reinforcing their dominance in formal discussions and decision-making bodies.

Although there are no educational requirements for joining social forestry, research shows that those with more education tend to have more influence. In our study, women in social forestry households averaged fewer years of education (6.6 years) compared to men (8.1 years). Lower education levels, socio-economic challenges, and low confidence in public forums, where education often boosts credibility, can further exclude women.

Geographic barriers such as remote forest locations, rough terrain, and poor roads also hinder women’s participation, making travel difficult and limiting their ability to be involved.

Assistance helps, as do local women leaders

In the Sintang and Gunungkidul sites, women have taken on greater roles in forest management bodies.

In Sintang, support from the Indonesian NGO PUPUK (Association for the Improvement of Small Business) significantly boosted women’s participation in the village forest management body. PUPUK facilitated discussions, provided training at convenient times for women, and encouraged male leaders to back greater female involvement. The number of female members increased from just one in 2018 to 12 women and nine men in a newly formed management body in 2022.

The Tapang tree, sacred in Sintang, West Kalimantan, supports bee nests, providing honey as a vital livelihood source.
Author provided (no reuse)

The social forestry group in Gunungkidul – initially a male-dominated, government-led reforestation project – evolved into a community-driven initiative with strong female leadership. Support from both government and NGOs enabled women to take more active roles in forestry and agriculture, especially as many men (and some women) left to seek work elsewhere.

A university-educated woman now leads this group and has inspired younger women to join forest management and KUPS activities. These include producing traditional herbal drinks (wedang uwuh) and making snacks from taro, cassava, and arrowroot grown on forest land.

Across the study sites, women involved in KUPS have developed skills in forest management, financial planning, product processing, and marketing, earning modest incomes. These activities have also shifted gender roles. For example, in Sintang, when Mirna (pseudonym) became head of the KUPS, her husband started taking on domestic chores like cooking and childcare to support her work.

What’s next?

Tackling gender disparities in social forestry requires targeted policies to ensure women’s voices, especially from marginalised groups, are heard in decision-making processes that affect their livelihoods and access to resources.

Introducing quotas or affirmative measures for forest management bodies can help close the gender gap and ensure more equitable benefit distribution. Evidence from other Global South regions suggests that at least 30% female representation in forest management bodies is necessary for meaningful participation, enabling women to influence decisions more effectively.

Inclusive governance also depends on fair representation of different ethnic and socio-economic groups, particularly poorer households. When disadvantaged groups are poorly represented, the distribution of benefits suffers, limiting the equitable flow of resources and opportunities.

Partnerships with NGOs and civil society groups skilled in addressing gender differences can empower women and marginalized men with the skills and confidence needed to engage in decision-making bodies.

Creating safe spaces is also vital. This includes holding gender-specific discussions in local languages at times that fit with both women’s and men’s schedules.

The government must also commit to regularly monitoring women’s participation by collecting and publishing accurate gender-disaggregated data, specific to each site and region.

A decree issued by Ministry of Environment and Forestry in August introduces a policy shift that allows individuals — not just groups — to apply for social forestry. This could boost women’s participation, provided targeted support helps them step into leadership roles. Without this backing, the risk remains that social forestry will continue to be dominated by elite men.

Rahpriyanto Alam Surya Putra, the director of The Asia Foundation’s Environmental Governance program in Indonesia, and Ike Sulistiowati, Director of PUPUK Indonesia, contributed to this study. Läs mer…