Could a glitch in T-Mobile service be responsible for the death of an infant? A new lawsuit places blame on the mobile company after a babysitter was unable to reach 911 due to a glitch in T-Mobile technology in Dallas.

The lawsuit, obtained by CNN, alleges that Brandon Alex, a 6-month-old infant, passed away in March after he rolled off the bed. It also claims that his babysitter, Michelle Cohen, was placed on hold multiple times after calling 911. The location of the apartment also allegedly did not appear in Dallas’ 911 call center, leaving Cohen without EMT support and no ability to transport the child to a hospital.

The glitch that caused the call center to be unreachable related to an ongoing problem with “ghost calls“: illegitimate calls that can clog up 911 call centers and force actual callers to remain on hold. In Dallas, this occurred when T-Mobile users placed a 911 call and their phone sent multiple calls to the center, clogging the line while they were unable to reach an operator.

The issue, which is still somewhat of a mystery to officials, has also been blamed for another death in the Dallas area. “Ghost calls” are not a problem unique to Dallas or to T-Mobile, but the company has been under FCC investigation in the past for 911 service outages that plagued its customers. In that case, the company reached a $17.5 million settlement provided that it worked to “strengthen its 911 service procedures” and ensure that it was complying with federal regulations.

After the death of Alex, Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings demanded that action be taken by the cell phone company to ensure that the problem was fixed in a swift manner. The company immediately sent executives and engineers to the city to begin investigating the issue.

Public safety of our citizens is my most important priority. I will not be satisfied until this T-Mobile 911 challenge is completely fixed. pic.twitter.com/7LDKYdmRQ1

— Mayor Mike Rawlings (@Mike_Rawlings) March 15, 2017

The lawsuit alleges gross negligence on the part of T-Mobile for ignoring warnings and continuing to use technology apparently incompatible with Dallas’ 911 system.

While the source of the problem continues to remain a mystery, the company has reportedly taken a number of actions to resolve the issue since the March incident.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post T-Mobile is Facing a Lawsuit for the Death of a Child appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Egypt Declares a State of Emergency After ISIS Bombings

Yesterday, two Coptic Christian churches were bombed in the Egyptian cities of Alexandria and Tanta, and the country’s president has declared a three-month long state of emergency. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the blasts that killed at least 49 people and injured at least 78, according to the latest numbers. Coptic Christians are a targeted minority in Egypt and they often face persecution and discrimination. The explosions happened on Palm Sunday, which marks the beginning of Easter and the Holy Week in Christianity.

Egypt declares 3-month state of emergency after twin bomb blasts in churches packed for Palm Sunday services. https://t.co/zZWwHInKdX pic.twitter.com/DTVnKdhosg

— ABC News (@ABC) April 10, 2017

But Egyptians of various faiths came together late on Sunday, gathering in big groups in defiance of ISIS. Many used a hashtag saying “your terrorism brings us together” in Arabic on social media. Photos posted on social media showed Muslims donating blood to victims of the attack. And President Abdel Fatah el-Sisi called for unity in his speech following the attacks, saying, “What’s happening now is against all of us.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Librarians Make A Black Lives Matter Statement

Libraries all over the nation have recently had to deal with the question of political neutrality, especially regarding Black Lives Matter and the importance of diverse collections, displays, and staff. Many library managers think libraries should remain neutral but Storytime Underground offers a different perspective:

LIBRARIANS ARE NOT NEUTRAL AND LIBRARIES ARE NOT NEUTRAL SPACES.

— StorytimeUnderground (@StorytimeU) July 12, 2016

It’s disingenuous to pretend that we have ever been. The DDC is racist and prejudiced against non-western religions.

— StorytimeUnderground (@StorytimeU) July 12, 2016

In earlier days of our profession, we helped censor materials for the war effort. Now, freedom of information is our ethical code.

— StorytimeUnderground (@StorytimeU) July 12, 2016

Click here for more.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 14, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Former congressman and radio host Joe Walsh threatened Obama and Black Lives Matter supporters on Twitter late Thursday night. In a tweet that since has been deleted he said “this is now war,” before warning Obama to watch out and that the “real America is coming for you.”

Former GOP Rep, now radio host, @WalshFreedom, deleted this tweet last night after the #DallasPoliceShooting: pic.twitter.com/RzhzJmY1QW

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) July 8, 2016

Thursday night was the deadliest night for police officers since 9/11, leaving five officers dead after gunmen fired shots at police during a protest against police shootings. Republican Joe Walsh was very active on Twitter throughout the night posting several updates blaming Obama and liberals for the tragedy.

Obama says Cops are racist so 2 uneducated black thugs shoot 10 Dallas Cops tonight, killing 4.

Wake up silent majority. Stand w our Cops.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

BLM should be categorized as a hate group.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

Totally ignoring the recent shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, or for that matter all 136 black people that have already been killed by the police this year, Walsh had the guts to say it’s “time to stand against the cop haters.”

It's time 4 patriotic Americans to stand up & stand against all the Cop haters – from Obama to the thugs on the street.

It's way past time.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

10 Cops shot.

You did this Obama.

You did this liberals.

You did this #BLM.

Time to defend our Cops. Wake up. https://t.co/Zoc3x2xlMk

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

Finally he “explained” his tweets to the Chicago Tribune on Friday morning, saying that of course he didn’t call for violence against Obama or Black Lives Matter, because “It would end my career and it’s wrong. I would never say anything as reprehensible as that.”

Walsh was criticized by a lot of people, including activist and musician John Legend.

Joe Walsh needs to be arrested for threatening our President. STFU @walshfreedom

— John Legend (@johnlegend) July 8, 2016

A Racist History?

Walsh is from Illinois and has a history of making racist  and offensive statements.

In 2011 when Walsh was in Congress he expressed his thoughts on the reason for Obama’s election in an interview with Slate.

Why was he elected? Again, it comes back to who he was. He was black, he was historic […]a black man who was articulate, liberal, the whole white guilt, all of that.

At a meeting in 2012 Walsh talked about radical Islam as a threat “at home,” saying “It’s in Elk Grove, it’s in Addison, it’s in Elgin,” referencing various towns in Illinois and upsetting local Muslims.

In 2013 Walsh started hosting a radio show after losing his seat in Congress. Only a year later he came under fire for using racial slurs when talking about American football, including the n-word. He was shut off from his own show and appeared to have no idea why.

The station keeps cutting me off. I don't know why

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 19, 2014

And here comes to the General Manager. It appears I can say Redskins, which is supposedly offensive, but when I say other words, commercial

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 19, 2014

Walsh seems to be lacking self-censorship and social skills. Maybe he should just stay away from his Twitter account for now.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former Congressman Joe Walsh Tweets Threats about Obama and BLM appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. The shooting of 12 police officers in Dallas, Texas during a protest has left many concerned and downright furious about the future of gun violence in America. See what the nation’s top leaders had to say:

The Presidential Candidates React to #Dallas

Last night Dallas law enforcement officers were shot during a protest. The protests were in response to Alton Sterling and Philando Castile’s recent deaths. The assassinations of these five police officers has left many with a sour taste in their mouth and presidential candidates Trump, Clinton, and Sanders have each offered their words of condolence and solidarity.

Hillary Clinton:

I mourn for the officers shot while doing their sacred duty to protect peaceful protesters, for their families & all who serve with them. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 8, 2016

Donald Trump:

Prayers and condolences to all of the families who are so thoroughly devastated by the horrors we are all watching take place in our country

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 8, 2016

Bernie Sanders:

The attack on police officers in Dallas last night is horrifying and despicable. We must as a nation stand against violence of all kinds.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) July 8, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

I have a bad habit. Every morning, in between snoozing my alarm 15 times and finally dragging my butt out of bed, I scroll through my Facebook and Twitter feeds. Usually it’s more of the same–more people I went to high school with got engaged, the (many) dog accounts I follow have posted cute puppy pictures, friends are bitching about a) Hillary Clinton, b) Donald Trump, or c) both. It’s an act of masochism, in a lot of ways–I don’t necessarily care about any of those posts (minus, of course, the puppy pictures.) As a journalist who focuses on law and policy for millennials, social media is a free window into the mood of the U.S. But as a consumer of all things law and policy, and someone who is paid to keep a finger on the zeitgeist, this week has been a nightmare.

It started with the killing of Alton Sterling who was shot by Baton Rouge police earlier this week. Although start is a misnomer in a lot of ways–if we want to look to the start we maybe need to consider the 136 black people killed by police this year, or maybe the 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman that sparked the Black Lives Matter movement, or even the fact that policing in the American South was in many ways born out of a desire to control freed slaves after the Civil War. But today’s not the day for a history lesson, and so for all intents and purposes, we’re going to start with Alton Sterling. He was shot and killed while held down by police officers, and then the protests began. And then, as always, voices began to drown out the protests. They said “we don’t have all the facts,” they said “he shouldn’t have been resisting,” and his criminal record was brought up time and time again, as though any of those were reasons for the police officers to take his life.

Then there was Philando Castile, a 32-year-old black man from Minnesota. He was pulled over for a broken tail light, a relatively routine traffic stop. According to his girlfriend, who was in the seat next to him, he was asked for his license and registration, and he told the officer that he had a concealed weapon and a license to conceal carry. He reached for his ID, and the officer shot him four times. He died that night. The protests began, and as always, other voices began to drown out the protests. They said “we don’t have all the facts, they said “maybe he moved too quickly,” and they pointed out that police officers are trained to deal with every situation. These were reasons given for why a traffic stop ended with a man dying in the front seat while his girlfriend sat next to him and his girlfriend’s four-year-old sat in the back seat.

And now it’s today, Friday, July 8, and there was a shooting in Dallas last night during a peaceful rally. Snipers shot 12 police officers and two civilians–five of those officers are dead. Three suspects have been taken into custody, a fourth was killed during a standoff. According to the New York Times, “officials said the attackers were planning to injure and kill as many law enforcement officers as they could.” And so again, I woke up and my Facebook and Twitter feeds were angry.

But this was a different kind of anger. I saw post after post blaming the tragedy in Dallas last night on the protesters, on the fact that we’re now talking about the injustices that have permeated American policing for centuries, and on the fact that sometimes there’s not just bad guys and good guys but that it’s much more complicated than that.

To blame the tragedy in Dallas (and it was absolutely a tragedy) on the Black Lives Matter movement, to blame it on the people who just want to make sure that justice is afforded to all Americans, and to use the deaths of five police officers who were working the protests to satisfy preconceived notions about how systemic racism in our justice system simply doesn’t exist, despite all the evidence to the contrary is an injustice–for Alton Sterling, for Philando Castile, for the five police officers who were shot, and for the country as a whole.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Terrible Week: Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, the Dallas Shootings appeared first on Law Street.

It has been a long, bloody week in America. Following the killing of two black men by police in Louisiana and Minnesota earlier this week, protests sprung up across the country. In Dallas on Thursday night, a peaceful protest turned violent when shots rang out at about 8:45 pm. As a fuller picture of what happened develops over the coming days, read on for details on what we know, what we don’t know, and how Thursday’s tragic episode fits into a larger historical perspective.

What Happened

Five police officers were killed, and seven others were wounded. Two civilians were shot as well. As the Dallas police conduct their investigation, information surrounding the shooting is slowly trickling in. Reports indicate one of the shooters was killed in a parking garage in an overnight standoff with SWAT forces after negotiations failed. He has been identified as Micah Johnson, 25, and a resident of Dallas. The Dallas police chief told reporters on Friday that Johnson, during the standoff in the parking garage, said he was upset about recent events in Louisiana and Minnesota, and he “wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”

The police detonated an explosive device that was connected to a robot, enabling them to kill Johnson while preserving their own safety. He said he acted alone, not on behalf of any group. But it is unclear if he had any assistance from any of the other suspects at this time. He also told officers that there were explosive devices he planted in the area. Officers are conducting explosive sweeps of the Dallas area.

According to a statement by the Dallas Police Department, the gunfire was delivered from an “elevated position.” Aside from the suspect that was killed by the explosive device, police have three other suspects in custody. In the hours after the chaos on Thursday night, police mistakenly identified a man in a camouflage shirt as a suspect. After hearing he was wrongly suspected, Mark Hughes turned himself in to clear up any confusion before the situation escalated.

What We Don’t Know

Many pieces to the puzzle of what happened Thursday night in Dallas are still missing. Five officers have been killed as of Friday morning, but that figure could rise as the seven who were wounded undergo treatment. It is also unclear how many shooters were involved in the attack–aside from one man who was killed overnight in a standoff with a SWAT team–or if they were coordinated or premeditated. Follow Law Street’s Twitter account to keep up to date with the story as it develops.

A Tense Time for Police and Communities of Color

This attack comes during a period in which the relationship between the police and African American communities is particularly strained. On Tuesday, Alton Sterling was shot and killed at close range by police officers in the process of arresting him. The incident was captured on video and sparked protests nationwide. Then on Wednesday, a police officer in Minnesota shot and killed Philando Castile at a traffic stop. Diamond Reynolds, Castile’s girlfriend who was in the car with him, says that Castile told the officer he had a licensed firearm but was shot while he was reaching for his wallet. Reynolds started live-streaming the immediate aftermath of the shooting on Facebook, prompting even greater outrage.

The Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas on Thursday was a response to these deaths and a continuation of recent efforts to address police violence in minority communities. So far, all accounts suggest that the rally was peaceful before the shooting broke out.

The Dallas Police Department’s Twitter account chronicled the protests as it moved through the downtown area:

Men, women, boys & girls gathered @ Belo Garden Park for the demonstration re: recent police involved shootings. pic.twitter.com/gah2Q3tqG6

— Dallas Police Depart (@DallasPD) July 8, 2016

At a press conference after the shooting, Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings mourned the loss of the officers and highlighted the police department’s recent efforts to improve relations with the community. He said, “This police department trained in de-escalation far before cities across America did it. We are one of the premier community policing cities in the country and this year we have the fewest police officer related shootings than any large city in America.” He also noted that so far there was no indication that the violence was related to the protesters.

The Deadliest Incident in Over a Decade

The shooting in Dallas marks the deadliest incident for police officers since the attacks on September 11, 2001. According to preliminary statistics released by the FBI, there were 42 felonious officer deaths in 2015. Last night’s incident alone amounts to more than 10 percent of last year’s total.

The Officer Down Memorial Page, which tracks police officer deaths throughout the year, recorded 21 deaths from gunfire in 2016 prior to the killings in Dallas. Over the past 10 years, the number of felonious police officer deaths has generally trended downward.

Available evidence does not suggest that violence against the police has increased in recent years as police officers face heightened scrutiny. While the number of felonious deaths tends to fluctuate from year to year, the best way to measure violence against the police is with the FBI’s assaults in the line of duty statistics. The FBI plans to release data for the 2015 calendar year later this fall.

Read More: What We Know About Officer Deaths in the Line of Duty

Read More: Law Street Media’s Police in America 2016 coverage

Kevin Rizzo also contributed to this article.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nightmare in Dallas: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

In Dallas, Texas an 89-year-old woman helped stop a criminal on a violent streak when he tried to invade her home with a knife. Mili Carter, the grandmother who was at home alone with her two dogs at the time, responded quickly and slyly to the situation, which ended in the arrest of a local criminal and a pretty hilarious lesson.

Carter was sitting alone in her Dallas apartment when the intruder knocked on her back door, yelling for help. When she went to open the door, she was shocked to find a man–later identified as Maxxim Elliot Bedford–with a knife, forcing her to let him inside. Once in her apartment, he tried to drag her into the laundry room in order to get a change of clothes and to hide from the police who were looking for him after an alleged break-in. Instead, Carter ran the other way and called 911 once she was safely outside.

Bedford was a known criminal in the area and had tried (and failed) to steal three cars the day before this break-in occurred. After two failed carjacking attempts, he was stopped in his tracks by a man with a gun–who was not happy to see his car being stolen–on his third try.

In fact, the reason he had demanded to be let into Carter’s apartment was so that he could escape the police after allegedly burglarizing a nearby apartment. Unfortunately for Bedford, he was no match for Mili Carter’s quick wits and brave attitude. After spending two and a half hours locked in Carter’s bathroom, the police finally broke down the door to find Bedford inside with a hair straightener, instead of the gun he claimed to have had.

The most amazing thing about this entire scenario was Carter’s response to the stressful situation. She remained calm and in control and when WFAA News 8 asked about the whole ordeal and how she managed to stay calm, she replied, “I reared three boys and four daughters. You don’t show fear.” Better yet, when asked to comment on the experience overall Carter had this to say: “I’ve lived this long. How do you think I got there? Not by being a wimp.”

The moral of the story? Don’t be a wimp in the face of danger. It’s not that often you find such a cool, calm, and collected grandma in a situation like that. You go Mili!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Grandma Fends Off Armed Intruder in Dallas appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday night, President Obama announced an executive action that will protect millions of undocumented immigrants and restructure the United States’ priorities when it comes to immigration enforcement. And he used some fighting words. Obama stated:

The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half century. And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.

Obama’s speech–just weeks after the Democrats basically got trounced in the midterms–was powerful, and regardless of how both his political allies and opponents are acting on the Hill, will make a real difference in the lives of millions of people who call America home.

But if you were interested in watching this speech, you may have had a hard time finding it. The big TV networks–ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS–chose not to air the speech. Instead, CBS presented an episode of The Big Bang Theory; Fox network viewers saw Bones; and viewers tuning to NBC were able to enjoy The Biggest Loser: Glory Days.

While cable stations like Fox News, CNN, and Univision carried it, the big four networks chose not to and opted for their regular programming instead. That was their choice. When the President is giving an important speech, the White House can put in an official request that the speech be carried. In this case, the White House did not, apparently after hearing from networks that they weren’t too enthusiastic to postpone their normal programming. At one point, a supposed network insider called the speech too “overtly political.”

Obviously, this choice on the networks’ part wasn’t just about politics–it was about money. In today’s epoch of pretty predictable political apathy, you get more viewers when you show beloved shows like Shonda Rhimes’ Grey’s Anatomy than when you show the same President Obama speech on immigration that every other network has access to. And when you get more viewers your advertisers are happy. And then you make more money. It’s a pretty simple equation.

The story gets more complicated than that though. You see, stations like FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS are national, but each place has their local affiliate that actually controls what that locale sees. That’s why I, living in D.C., can watch NBC but see a different morning news team than my parents living in Connecticut. There is some flexibility, apparently, because a few local affiliates gave a big middle finger up to their national stations, and showed the speech anyway. POLITICO found that:

A quick look at some major media markets found that the NBC affiliates in New York, Washington, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas and Phoenix; the ABC affiliates in Washington, Chicago, Boston and Kansas City; the Fox affiliates in Boston, Chicago, Dallas and Miami all aired the speech live. CBS affiliates were less likely to air the speech when it fell during the hit show “The Big Bang Theory,” though several of their affiliates outside the East Coast did air it live.

There seems to be fodder for an interesting internal struggle here–networks balked at the idea of showing Obama’s speech for presumably centrally financial reasons. But not everyone was willing to play ball, and the places where the speech ended up being shown are certainly illuminating. With a few exceptions, it seems like channels that showed the speech were in either more liberal areas, or areas like Dallas and Miami, known for larger immigrant populations. As strategic as the call was to not show the speech by big networks, the local stations took their own strategies into account.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Could You Watch Obama’s Speech? Depends Where you Live appeared first on Law Street.

Mankind’s greatest enemy is not war or hunger but infectious disease. Throughout history it has cost countless deaths, and even in the twenty-first century our defenses against it remain limited. Above all, it is the threat of outbreak that unsettles us so; it is not just suffering and death, but fear. Whether it’s the Black Plague, Cholera, Spanish Influenza, H1N1, or Ebola, disease is a dark cloud looming over our lives.

Most of the microscopic killers with which we contend have been transmitted to us through animals. In the early ages of settled agriculture, close contact with domesticated chickens, pigs, cows, and others exposed humans to pathogens to which their immune systems had no previous exposure and consequently minimal means by which to combat them. There are two primary behavioral patterns of diseases. Some ascribe to the category of “chronic.” In this case, as geographer and ornithologist Jared Diamond explains, “…the disease may take a very long time to kill its victim; the victim remains alive as a reservoir of microbes to infect other[s]…” The other category is “epidemic.” In this case, Diamond continues, there might be no cases for a while, followed by a large number in an affected area, and then none for a while more. Such behavior is a consequence of the intensity of the disease’s manifestation; it strikes with such force that it basically burns itself out because the potential hosts all either die or become immune.

“Epidemic” is a widely feared term. Rather than consider the fact that they can and have been occurring on very small scales throughout human history, many people associate epidemic with things like the Black Plague in Europe, Smallpox in the New World, or a global zombie apocalypse. Since people naturally fear most what they do not understand, insufficient knowledge of disease vectors and behavior results in widespread fear and panic.

Ebola is a relatively late arrival on the scene. Originally suspected to be yellow fever, it was discovered in 1976 near the Ebola River in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Samples extracted from an ill nun who had been working in the region came to doctors and scientists in an Antwerp, Belgium laboratory. They eventually discerned that the infection behaved differently from what would be expected of the original diagnosis. After sending samples to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, their conclusions were confirmed and a new disease had been discovered. Shortly thereafter, another outbreak occurred relatively far away in Sudan. While knowledge of the initial source and starting location of the disease is still vague, it was determined that it had spread via unsterilized syringes and contact with bodies during funerals. Therefore a lack of knowledge of the nature of the disease lent itself to its spread.

Ebola in large dropped off the radar screen until the recent epidemic began in West Africa. Going hand in hand with lack of knowledge of the disease are incomprehensive and underdeveloped means of addressing it. On a recent edition of Global Public Square, the insightful international news show hosted by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, international relations PhD Chelsea Clinton declared that the disease is spreading exponentially, necessitating exponential containment measures. This is very difficult to achieve, due to the poor technological and economic infrastructures of the region. As Dr. Paul Farmer — another guest on Zakaria’s show — expanded, the Liberian healthcare system is also very weak. Liberian Foreign Minister Augustine Ngafuan detailed how Liberians have deeply ingrained burial practices that involve close contact with bodies; this is an important aspect of cultural values in the region and not easily relinquished in the face of something that foreign experts, much less locals, barely understand.

A Liberian village, courtesy of jbdodane via Flickr.

Globalization and increased interconnectedness between individuals, societies, and locations has exacerbated the rate at which diseases spread. Many Americans cried out when infected aid workers were brought home to be treated. Appropriate measures were taken in this instance, with sanitary transportation vehicles bringing the patients to the Emory hospital in Georgia. Due to its affiliation with the CDC, this is one of the few facilities truly equipped to accommodate infectious diseases of this nature. Both those patients recovered, though they would likely have died if they were forced to remain in Africa. The situation was handled intelligently and effectively, without resounding negative consequences. Yet the outcry and fear demonstrates people’s lack of knowledge and tolerance of the unknown and perceived dangers. This was in fact the first occasion in which Ebola was present on American soil.

The situation changed with the death of Thomas Duncan. Having arrived from Liberia in late September, Duncan provided a new first by being the first patient diagnosed with Ebola in the United States. His illness was unknown during his transit, and so new fears arose as to the likelihood of Ebola crossing the ocean with traveler hosts. Now in a complete state of fear, Americans want more and more action taken in defense of the nation’s health, yet do not know what those measures ought to be because we do not know enough about the disease. Many airports have begun taking travelers’ temperatures. The CDC initially cited 101.4 degrees as the point at which one must be quarantined, but lowered it after some supposedly ill people were cleared. This demonstrates the uncertainty of the disease’s nature; in what ways does Ebola affect a person’s body temperature? At what point in their illness are they contagious? Is a body temperature an effective indicator of this? These questions have yet to be answered for the disease of whose existence we have known for less than 40 years.

Specialists clean up a Hazmat area, courtesy of sandcastlematt via Flickr.

The second set of problems that are causing fear are the alleged breaches of protocol that have enabled several other people to catch the disease in the United States. The Dallas hospital in which Duncan died was not equipped to handle this disease and consequently could not treat him effectively. Furthermore, the staff did not have the proper training insofar as interacting with Ebola, and this has been cited as the reason why nurse Nina Pham, who was treating him, became ill as well. A recent video surfaced wherein a patient is being transferred from one vehicle to another by four workers in “hazmat,” or hazardous material, uniforms. A fifth person, dubbed “clipboard man,” stands with them completely unprotected. Finally, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden has come under fire for making statements and then retracting them. Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Tom Marino has even called for him to step down. We have quickly forgotten, though, that in the early 1990s Frieden was instrumental in developing awareness and programs to combat a rising Tuberculosis epidemic in New York City. In addition to other stellar career highlights, Frieden is a highly capable leader experienced in engaging these concerns.

We are too wrapped up in fear of the unknown to do anything but demand immediate results. Ebola is a newcomer on the scene and will take some time to understand effectively. As we continue to discern our relationships with our surrounding environments, we do know that ebola is not nearly as contagious as other diseases. It requires direct contact with bodily fluids of infected patients. As we continue to learn how it works, and how our actions, societies, and cultures interact with it, we will become more effective at addressing it. In the meantime, we annually face airborne foes which are far more dangerous and contagious; do not forget to get your flu shot in the coming weeks.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ebola and America’s Fears appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like all anyone can talk about anymore is Ebola. Especially now that the first case of Ebola has been found in the United States, in Dallas, and the first case transmitted outside Africa reported in Madrid, people seem to be freaking out. One big concern has been that Ebola is going to become an issue in the U.S., which I just want to start by saying is unfounded and unrealistic. The public health infrastructure in the U.S., as well as our ability to isolate the disease make it incredibly unlikely that it becomes an epidemic. You’re still significantly more likely to die of the flu, or a car accident than even go near someone who has Ebola. As of press time, Thomas Eric Duncan — the man in Dallas who had contracted Ebola — has passed away of the disease, and while our thoughts and sympathy are with his family, this development does not change the risk factors in the U.S.

People are losing their minds over it. Seriously, check out #EbolaQandA on Twitter. It makes me terrified — not of Ebola, but at the extent to which our American education system appears to have failed people when it comes to very, very basic concepts of health and geography. Now Ebola is an incredibly important world issue right now, and combating it absolutely deserves our attention, vigilance, and support. That being said, we all need to take a deep breath over here in the U.S., and stop listening to misinformation and conspiracy theories, because this is getting silly. Here’s a helpful flowchart for anyone who’s concerned about the spread of Ebola in America.

Worried about Ebola? Here's a flowchart just for you! #diseases #outbreak #EbolaOutbreak #notenoughwine pic.twitter.com/U6uvQd8MKf

— Melody Butler (@MelodyButler) August 2, 2014

There have been many proposals to try to keep the United States from having Ebola-infected people cross over our borders. One of the most extreme is a “travel ban” aimed at West African countries with high infection rates.

This sounds like a good idea in theory, it really does. But in reality, it’s not something the U.S. will do, or should do. First of all, the best way to make sure that the United States does not experience problems with Ebola is to stop the epidemic. And if we restrict our access and communication with the affected region, it’s just going to get worse. When there’s not a huge risk of Ebola reaching any sort of epidemic levels in the United States, it doesn’t make sense to impede our relief efforts with a ban. A travel ban could mean that relief workers have a harder time going in, or refuse to go at all because they worry that they might not be able to get back.

Also, instituting a travel ban could make it more likely that someone with a case of Ebola makes it into the U.S. If we have a ban in place for countries heavily infected like Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia, people are going to find a way around it. They could go to Senegal, or any other nearby nation where travel is not restricted. Because of the ban they may be incentivized to lie about whether or not they’ve been in contact with an infected person in hopes of not being prevented from getting on a plane. Right now we’re able to track people and examine them at the airport and upon arrival, and we’re going to strengthen our tools for that. We shouldn’t incentivize anything that makes it harder for us to do that.

I’m not an expert in public health; I don’t know what will happen with this epidemic. But what I do know is that panicking is going to do nothing. Educate yourself. Donate to the relief effort. Don’t feed the frenzy. This crisis needs a pragmatic approach, not a reactionary one.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Keep Calm and Carry On: You Don’t Have Ebola appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time in the United States during the current outbreak, a patient was diagnosed with the Ebola virus–the Centers for Disease control confirmed the case on Tuesday. As if Thomas Duncan, the infected Liberian man who came to the United States, doesn’t have enough to worry about, he’s also facing legal trouble. The Liberian government will prosecute Duncan when he returns to Liberia for allegedly lying on an airport questionnaire, the Associated Press reported.

Duncan left Liberia on September 19th to visit his family and wasn’t showing any symptoms at the time. Days before, he helped take a 19-year-old infected pregnant woman to a hospital and helped bring her back home when she was turned away for lack of space, the New York Times reported. The woman, Marthalene Williams, died the next day. Williams’ parents said that Duncan helped carry her back from the taxi to her house. Her brother, who accompanied her, her father, and Duncan on the taxi ride home, also started showing symptoms of Ebola and died less than a week later.

When Duncan was at the airport on his way out of Liberia, he received a questionnaire given to anyone intending to depart Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone – the three West African countries countries most severely facing the Ebola epidemic – asking him about his recent contact history in the country. Duncan answered “no” when when asked whether he had been in contact with anyone who may have been infected.

Duncan passed the screening at the airport without showing any sign of symptoms and boarded his plane. The idea that Liberian officials would threaten to prosecute him might suggest double standards, since people are still able to move between countries in West Africa. But Liberia may have chosen to do this to make an example out of Duncan. It’s likely that Liberia wants to set a precedent that its screenings are serious business and wants countries to where Liberians travel to be reassured about that, Cornell University Law professor Jens Ohlin told the Atlantic.

The sudden decision to prosecute an infected person might also be an attempt not to upset U.S. officials, though Ohlin doesn’t seem to think so. This hasn’t happened in other major countries, so it is tough to say whether Liberia is singling out the United States.

Duncan is arguably very lucky that he happened to be in America when he started to show symptoms of Ebola. The average death rate has been up to 90 percent in previous outbreaks, according to the World Health Organization. But in August, two American aid workers who were working in West Africa were cured of the disease after being treated in Atlanta.

Currently being treated in a Dallas hospital, Duncan started showing symptoms on Sept. 24 and went in for treatment two days later. His family members in Dallas have also been quarantined in their apartment. While the situation is dire in West Africa, CDC Director guaranteed that it wouldn’t be a problem in the United States. “The United States has a strong health care system and public health professionals who will make sure this case does not threaten our communities,” he said in a press release on Tuesday.

—

Zaid Shoorbajee (@ZBajee)

Featured image courtesy of [Phil Moyer via Flickr]

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Liberia to Prosecute Ebola-Infected Traveler appeared first on Law Street.

Despite declining law school enrollment statistics nationwide, one school is going against the grain and defying the norm. The University of Northern Texas, Dallas School of Law’s inaugural class is shockingly large for a brand new law school–there are roughly 80 full-time and 40 part-time students enrolled so far. UNT Dallas Law’s success in recruiting students is due to a great tactic: offering low tuition rates. The new law school’s accomplishment reflects its mission to provide a legal education at a low cost.

A core goal of the UNT Dallas College of Law is keeping tuition and student debt low for all students to the extent consistent with meeting its educational goals. The organized bar and legal educators agree that the cost of legal education poses concerns for the profession and for legal education. High costs and debt loads reduce access to legal education, are often spread unevenly in relation to financial need, and shrink the horizon of opportunity. The UNT Dallas College of Law has a unique opportunity to respond to these challenges. We will not do this by reducing quality or taking short cuts. Rather, we will keep tuition low by focusing on excellence in our educational mission and by not incurring costs that are not critical to that mission.

The law school boasts the lowest tuition costs in the state of Texas–$12,540 for in-state tuition, and $24,000 for out-of-state. See how these prices compare to other Texas law schools:

UNT Dallas Law is taking a whole new approach to the law school industry. Not only does UNT Dallas Law offer shockingly low tuition rates and grant need-based scholarships, but they also target a unique audience. Unlike most other law schools, UNT Dallas School of Law focuses on attracting the “nontraditional” law student–older students, often with families of their own, who are returning to get that legal degree they couldn’t afford right after college.

UNT Dallas Law aims to make every moment in law school a valuable learning experience. Students must complete extensive legal writing and research courses and practice foundation courses. Students are encouraged to select specialties in their upper-level curriculum such as family law, business association, and evidence. As part of the upper-level curriculum, students are encouraged to engage in practicums, externships, and clinics.

According to Dallas News, UNT Dallas Law seeks to train lawyers who will work in the public sector “to represent the middle class, small companies and other groups.” Last week I wrote about the need for legal public service in our country. UNT Dallas School of Law is doing an excellent job by pinpointing the lack of public service in the legal industry and encouraging its students to pursue careers in that field.

By working around the norms for tuition and focus in law school, UNT Dallas Law could actually make a mark on legal education practices. Other schools are also working to lower tuition, but their rates pale in comparison to those of UNT Dallas Law’s. Despite what Above the Law has to say about building yet another law school in our nation, we should give UNT Dallas Law a chance. By providing students with an affordable education in a field that is seriously lacking legal professionals, UNT Dallas Law is already ahead of the curve. Its location also puts it at a great advantage–cities with dense populations usually have a greater need for legal aid.

The institution may not yet be ABA accredited but that’s completely normal for new law schools. According to the ABA’s Law School Accreditation Process, institutions cannot apply until they have been operating for at least one full year; UNT Dallas Law is in the process of welcoming its first class ever. So, I say give UNT Dallas Law a chance–an affordable, practical legal education that targets the inadequate legal aid for those who can’t afford Ivy-leaguers may be just the remedy our nation needs.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [tylerhoff via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Disruptor of the Week: The New UNT Dallas School of Law appeared first on Law Street.