Rising Tides: Support for Gay Marriage in New Jersey at an All-Time High

The fight for marriage equality has been a long and difficult journey for members of the LGBTQ+ community. However, recent data shows that support for gay marriage is at an all-time high in New Jersey. This article will explore the rising trend of support for gay marriage in New Jersey and what it means for the LGBTQ+ community.

Introduction

New Jersey has been a leader in the fight for marriage equality in the United States. In 2013, the state legally recognized same-sex marriages, following a Supreme Court ruling that declared a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. The journey towards marriage equality, however, has not been easy and has been met with significant opposition. However, the trend of support for gay marriage in New Jersey has been steadily increasing over time.

Historical Background

The LGBTQ+ community in New Jersey has been fighting for their rights and freedoms for decades. In 1993, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to the same legal benefits and protections as opposite-sex couples, yet marriage was not legal. In 2006, the state legislature passed a bill banning gay marriage. It was not until 2013 that same-sex marriage became legal in the state.

Recent Data on Support for Gay Marriage

In recent years, support for gay marriage has been steadily increasing in New Jersey. According to a 2021 poll conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute, nearly 70% of New Jersey residents support same-sex marriage. This is a significant increase from 2013 when only 59% of residents supported gay marriage. These numbers reflect the continued shift in societal attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community and their rights.

What it Means for the LGBTQ+ Community

The increasing support for gay marriage in New Jersey is a positive step forward for the LGBTQ+ community. It signals a growing acceptance of same-sex relationships and the recognition of LGBTQ+ rights. By legalizing same-sex marriage, LGBTQ+ individuals and couples gain access to legal protections, ensuring that they can enjoy the same benefits and rights as heterosexual couples.

Conclusion

The journey towards marriage equality has not been an easy one. However, the rise in support for gay marriage in New Jersey is a positive sign that societal attitudes are shifting towards acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community. With growing support, the fight for equality can continue towards a future where love is celebrated, and everyone has equal rights and protections under the law.

A new poll issued by the Rutgers-Eagleton association shows support for marriage in equality in the state of New Jersey at an all-time high; over 62 percent of voters in the Garden State said they would happily vote for marriage equality should it be placed on a ballot. The poll also showed that a decisive majority of voters—over 75 percent—favor the issue going to a ballot vote to bring gay marriage to the state.

The poll also found support for gay marriage to be at considerable figures in key demographics, and illustrated significant increases from polling last year, following Governor Chris Christie’s veto of a historic marriage bill that was initially passed by the state legislature. In particular, support for gay marriage has spiked among Catholics and men in the garden state.

According to the poll issued by the Rutgers-Eagleton association, those supporting gay marriage equality include the following:

·         63 percent of Catholics in New Jersey support gay marriage

·         63 percent of Independents in New Jersey support gay marriage

·         60 percent of men in New Jersey support gay marriage

·         64 percent of women in New Jersey support gay marriage

·         72 percent of Democrats in New Jersey support gay marriage

·         51 percent of African Americans in New Jersey support gay marriage

The Human Rights Campaign announced that they have recently partnered with the Garden State Quality Organization and a number of other civil rights, progressive, labor, and faith-based organizations as part of the Garden State Coalition for Equality. Together these groups are working hard to eliminate bullying and secure lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual rights in the state of New Jersey.

Introduction

The Supreme Court has ruled on its first case this October, and it concerns the rights of anti-abortion protesters. The case, Lefemine v. Wideman, revolves around a Christian activist group that displayed graphic images of aborted fetuses during their protests. The ruling has significant implications for free speech and the abortion debate.

The Case

The case centers around Steve Lefemine, a member of a Christian activist group that protests against abortion. Lefemine and his group frequently display graphic images of aborted fetuses during their protests in South Carolina, which has led to disciplinary action from local law enforcement.

Lefemine sued the officials, arguing that their actions violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately sided with Lefemine in a 9-0 decision.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lefemine v. Wideman was a victory for free speech advocates, and it has important implications for future anti-abortion protests. The Court held that local officials violated Lefemine’s First Amendment rights by using South Carolina’s disturbing the peace law to shut down his protests.

The decision means that anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced simply because their message is controversial or offensive. It is a significant win for those who believe in the importance of free speech, regardless of the topic.

The Implications

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lefemine v. Wideman will likely have far-reaching implications for future anti-abortion protests. It means that protesters can continue to display graphic images of aborted fetuses without fear of legal repercussions.

However, the ruling also raises questions about the limits of free speech. While the First Amendment protects speech, it does not protect all forms of expression. Some may argue that graphic images of aborted fetuses are too extreme and should not be allowed in public spaces.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lefemine v. Wideman is a significant victory for free speech advocates and anti-abortion protesters. While it raises questions about the limits of free speech, it also reinforces the importance of allowing controversial and offensive speech in public spaces.

The ruling sets an important precedent for future cases involving anti-abortion protests and free speech. It is a reminder that even in the midst of a heated political debate, the rights of individuals to express their opinions must be protected.

The first case to be ruled on in the new Supreme Court session this October was Lefemine v. Wideman.  The case involves a Christian activist group that is involved in anti-abortion protests.  Lefemine, as a member of this group, displayed graphic posters featuring images of aborted fetuses while protesting abortions in South Carolina.

In 2005, the group, Columbia Christians for Life, was protesting at a major intersection.  Local residents were angered by the graphic displays, and called the police department to complain.  Greenwood County police arrived on the scene and asked the protesters to remove the signs or be cited.  Because the protesters did not want to risk getting a ticket, they peacefully disbanded the protest.

After Lefemine complained to the police department, he was told that if he continued to demonstrate with the signs, they would continue to interrupt demonstrations and potentially ticket protesters.  As a result, Leftemine sued the police department for violating his First Amendment rights.

Both the district and appeals court held that Lefemine’s rights had indeed been violated by the police department, and gave the requested injunction against the police department. The Supreme Court case involved one major detail that had been left unresolved: attorney’s fees.

While the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did decide the case in Lefemine’s favor, they stopped short of allowing him to collect attorney fees from the police department.  Lefemine appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking for the fees to be paid.

The court traditionally awards attorney’s fees when someone has prevailed in a case.  However, both the district and circuit courts hearing the case considered Lefemine not to have “prevailed” because he was awarded only an injunction against future illegal behavior, rather than any damages.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the appeals court’s assessment of this situation, ruling that in a lawsuit, a party prevails when their relative positions change because of the resolution to the lawsuit.  Because Lefemine had already been told by the police department that they would cite him for breach of the peace for his signage if he continued to use it, and because after the injunction this would no longer occur, Lefemine had prevailed.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision made regarding attorney fees in the case.  However, they also noted that the law makes an exception on the attorney fees rule for cases in which “special circumstances would render such an award unjust.”  Neither the police department’s attorneys nor Lefemine’s had made note of any such circumstances in their petition to the Court, so this decision was sent back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to make a ruling on.

This case has relevance not only to anti-abortion protesters but also to any demonstrators seeking attorney fees for their lawsuits.  The ruling may make it significantly easier for groups to sue when they believe their right to assemble or protest has been violated by law enforcement.

Source: supremecourt.gov

Texas State Agencies Settle with EEOC For $175k

The Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas General Land Office have agreed to pay a combined $175,000 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The two state agencies were accused of paying female employees less than men for jobs that required equal skills, effort, and responsibilities. The settlement agreement has avoided a trial and serves as a reminder of the ongoing battle for gender equality in the workplace.

The Allegations

The EEOC filed separate lawsuits against the Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas General Land Office in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Both lawsuits accused the state agencies of paying female employees less than men for jobs that required equal work. The EEOC alleged that female employees were discriminated against based on their sex and that the state agencies had violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The state agencies denied any wrongdoing but have agreed to settle the lawsuits for a total of $175,000. The Texas Department of Agriculture will pay $75,000, while the Texas General Land Office will pay $100,000. The settlement agreement also includes provisions requiring the agencies to conduct training on equal pay practices and report their progress to the EEOC over the next two years.

The Importance of Equal Pay

The settlement is a reminder of the ongoing fight for gender equality in the workplace, particularly when it comes to equal pay. Women in the United States still earn only 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, with even wider disparities for women of color. In addition, women are often subject to discrimination and harassment in the workplace, further limiting their earning potential and career growth.

The EPA and Title VII are federal laws designed to address these disparities and ensure that men and women are paid equally for the same work. The EPA prohibits employers from paying employees of one sex less than employees of the opposite sex for jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex, including inequitable pay practices.

Conclusion

The settlement between the Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas General Land Office and the EEOC is a victory for gender equality in the workplace, but there is still much work to be done. The wage gap continues to persist, and women remain subject to discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Employers must remain vigilant in ensuring that they are not engaging in discriminatory practices and that employees are paid fairly for their work, regardless of their sex. The settlement serves as a reminder that gender equality is a fundamental right, and one that must be fought for and protected in all areas of society.

The Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas General Land Office have avoided a trial in sex discrimination lawsuits from current and former employees.  The EEOC alleged that both state agencies had been paying women less than men for job duties requiring equal skills, effort, and responsibilities.

Court documents by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also stated that when the women complained about the wage discrimination issue, they were retaliated against by their employers.  One of the employees repeatedly brought up pay discrepancies with her superiors, but no action was taken by them to remedy the situation.

The violations of federal law were noticed by an employee who discovered that male program specialists hired into the Disaster Recovery Division of the Texas Department of Rural Affairs were paid substantially more than women who obtained the same position.  The total pay difference between male and female program specialists was as much as $18,000 to $20,000.

The TDRA’s disaster recovery division was eliminated for budget reasons in 2011.  While the three plaintiff women were eliminated at the time when the department was, their two male colleagues were kept on, working in the same capacity in a different department within the agency.

According to the EEOC, the conduct of the TDRA violated the federal Equal Pay Act, which also applies to state and local government agencies.  Damages in the settlement are equivalent to the back pay that would ensure that the women in the case were paid as much as their male counterparts.

Wage discrimination has been illegal at all levels of government since 1963, but discriminatory practices have often persisted.  Due to the fact that people are often reluctant to discuss or ask for information about salaries of other people working in their departments, and due to the fact that it can be difficult to compare skill and experience levels, some of these wage discrimination issues are discovered only years after the fact.

The EEOC has seen a marked uptick in wage discrimination complaints in the last year.  Part of the reason for the continued increase may have less to do with an increase in the incidence of wage discrimination and more to do with a continued effort on the part of the EEOC to identify and punish discriminatory employers.  The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 has also made it substantially easier for employees to sue for wage discrimination even if they find out about the discrimination a long time after it begins.

Source: eeoc.gov, uscourts.gov

Indian Supreme Court Takes Steps To Stop Street Harassment

Sexual harassment on India’s streets, commonly known as “eve teasing,” has been a longstanding issue in the country. However, the Indian Supreme Court has taken a step towards addressing the problem by directing each of the states in India to develop policies to prevent this kind of sexual harassment on their streets. In this article, we explore the issue of street harassment in India and its impact on women, as well as the significance of the Supreme Court’s directives.

The Issue of Street Harassment in India

Street harassment, or “eve teasing,” has long been prevalent in India, with women frequently subjected to unwanted attention, comments and physical contact while in public spaces. It is a form of gender-based violence that affects millions of women across the country and can have serious consequences for their physical and mental well-being.

The harassment can take a variety of forms, from verbal abuse and wolf-whistling to groping and other acts of physical violence. Women are often blamed for provoking the harassment, with victim-blaming and shaming being common responses from both the public and law enforcement.

The Impact of Street Harassment on Women

The impact of street harassment on women is significant and far-reaching. It can lead to feelings of fear and anxiety, and can limit their ability to freely move about in public spaces. It can also cause psychological harm, such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Street harassment can also have economic consequences, as women may be deterred from pursuing education or employment opportunities if they feel unsafe in public spaces. It can also limit their social and civic engagement, further perpetuating gender inequality in the country.

The Supreme Court’s Directives

To address the problem of street harassment, the Indian Supreme Court has directed each of the states in India to develop policies to prevent this kind of sexual harassment on their streets. Each state is required to establish a nodal agency to receive and address complaints of sexual harassment in public spaces, as well as to deploy plainclothes policewomen to patrol these areas. The directives also call for the establishment of awareness campaigns to educate the public on the harm caused by street harassment.

The Supreme Court’s directives are significant, as they demonstrate a commitment to addressing the issue of street harassment and holding those responsible for perpetrating it accountable. They also send a message to women across the country that their safety and well-being are a priority for the government.

Conclusion

Street harassment is a serious issue in India that affects millions of women and perpetuates gender inequality. The Indian Supreme Court’s directives to each of the states in India to develop policies to prevent this kind of sexual harassment on their streets is a positive step towards ending this harmful practice. It is now up to each state to take action to make public spaces safe for women, and to work towards creating a more equal and just society.

Sexual harassment on India’s streets, a practice commonly known there as “eve teasing,” is a problem that must be alleviated within three months, according to directives given by the Indian Supreme Court this week.  The Supreme Court has directed each of the states in India to develop policies to prevent this kind of sexual harassment on their streets.

Some of the remedies that the high court proposed included cameras placed in public areas where sexual harassment or even sexual violence are most common.  Helplines to be dialed by victims of unwanted male attention could also be useful to help catch men who are harassing women.  “Eve teasing” can take several forms in India, ranging from verbal bullying to catcalls or even flashing of the genitals or groping.

Another strategy recommended by the Indian Supreme Court is to have female police officers in plain clothes watching areas where harassment is likely.  By having women officers present and able to arrest men who engage in harassing behavior toward them, the harassing behavior would likely stop in that location very quickly.

Surveys in India have consistently shown that sexual harassment is not regarded as a problem by a large number of boys and men.  While men have said that women are simply being “teased,” women have reported significant psychological problems as a result of repeated street harassment and eve teasing.

The 26 page Indian Supreme Court judgment also warns of disatrous consequences including suicide for girls who are relentlessly teased.  According to them, even being on public transit can be “a horrendous and painful ordeal.”

Private organizations and smaller public departments were also called upon to watch for incidents of harassment and take steps to prevent them from recurring.  For example, because many incidents of eve teasing occur on India’s many overcrowded buses and other public transit options, the court says that transit operators should be required to file a police complaint when a woman complains about sexual harassment.  Failure to comply would automatically result in a cancellation of permits, meaning that the bus would not be able to continue operating.

The Court noted that the Indian Constitution assures all of its citizens the “right to live with dignity and honour.”  According to the judges, three different articles of the Indian Constitution have been violated because of the states’ repeated unwillingness to tackle the problem of ongoing and pervasive sexual harassment in public places.

Sources: timesofindia.com, supremecourtofindia.nic.in, in.com

On September 21, 2012, the US Attorney’s Office in the District of Connecticut announced that John Miller, an East Haven Police Sergeant, pleaded guilty to using unreasonable force during an arrest.  The announcement was made by the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, David B. Fein, and the Acting Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI, Mary Galligan. 

The plea stems from a charge by the federal grand jury for John Miller and three other East Haven officers on January 18 for several different acts of civil rights offenses.  Miller was charged with striking a person who was handcuffed and in secure custody. 

John Miller faces a maximum punishment of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.  The FBI reports Miller is also on administrative leave from the East Haven Police Department.  Miller’s sentencing is scheduled for February 1, 2013.  The other defendants are still waiting for a trial. 

U.S Attorney Fein stated, “Police officers serve the people of the Connecticut with dedication and distinction, putting their safety on the line to protect others.  This case reminds us that no one is above the law.  This police officer abused his authority and violated the civil rights of a person he is sworn to protect.”  

FBI Acting Assistant Director in Charge Galligan stated, “When a police officer uses excessive force, he not only victimizes the person whose civil rights he violated, he undermines public trust in the professionals who are sworn to protect and serve, and do so honorably.”

If the public has information pertaining to the investigation, they are encouraged to call the FBI at 212-384-2240.  The case is being investigated by the New York Field Office of the FBI.  The case is being prosecuted by Deputy United States Attorney, Deirdre M. Daly, and Assistant United States Attorney, Krishna R. Patel.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

New “Maternity Mansion” in California Raises Legal Questions

When neighbors in a Chino Hills, California neighborhood noticed an influx of heavily pregnant Chinese women entering a house that had recently been bought, they became suspicious of what was happening inside. As it turns out, the house was a “maternity mansion,” a growing trend where wealthy Chinese women come to the United States to give birth and secure American citizenship for their children. While the practice is legal, it has raised legal and ethical questions about the business of birthright citizenship and the operation of these mansions.

What are “Maternity Mansions”?

Maternity mansions, also known as “birthing hotels,” are typically large, luxurious homes rented out for months at a time to pregnant women from other countries who want their children to be born in the United States. The practice is popular among wealthy Chinese women who want to give their children American citizenship, which comes with a range of benefits, including visa-free travel to more than 100 countries and access to better education and job opportunities.

These mansions offer a range of services to the expectant mothers, including pre- and post-natal care, meals, and transportation. The mothers typically pay tens of thousands of dollars for the experience, which includes the cost of airfare, accommodation, and other associated expenses.

Legal and Ethical Questions

While the practice of giving birth in the United States to secure citizenship for children is legal, the operation of these maternity mansions raises legal and ethical questions. Some argue that the practice is exploitative, with mothers being taken advantage of and the children being essentially used as a commodity to secure citizenship.

Others argue that the business of birthright citizenship perpetuates immigration issues in the country, with some mothers returning to the U.S. with their children to take advantage of social, educational, and economic benefits available to citizens, while never living in the country again.

The operation of maternity mansions has also raised concerns among neighbors, who complain about noise, traffic, and the presence of unfamiliar individuals in their neighborhoods. In some cases, the operation of these mansions violates zoning and health codes, and the operators of the mansions face legal repercussions.

Conclusion

The operation of maternity mansions in the United States raises legal and ethical questions about the business of birthright citizenship and the exploitation of mothers and children. While some argue that the practice is a legitimate way for mothers to secure a better future for their children, others argue that it perpetuates immigration issues and unjustly takes advantage of U.S. resources. As the popularity of these mansions continues to grow, there will be a need for legal and regulatory frameworks to address the issues at hand and ensure that the practice is conducted in an ethical and lawful manner.

When neighbors first noticed people entering the house that had recently been bought in their Chino Hills, California neighborhood, they noticed something immediately: the women tended to be Chinese and very heavily pregnant.  The large mansions in the residential area were used only as homes—what business could all the women entering and leaving the house at odd times be doing there?

The answer, as it turned out, had to do with United States citizenship.  The mansion in the quiet California neighborhood was serving as a maternity hotel, allowing Chinese citizens to have their children in the United States so that the child would automatically be an American citizen by birthright.

The seven bedroom mansion is apparently linked to a website that offers women a chance to have an American child for prices ranging up to $15,000.  Chino Hills residents are outraged by the business, which they describe as birth tourism and claim is illegal according to the zoning code that applies to the residence.

The mayor of Chino Hills, Art Bennett, has announced that the city has issued a cease and desist order to the people running the maternity hotel.  According to Bennett, hotels may not be run inside a normal residential home without proper permitting, which the home in question had not obtained or sought.

Sites that encourage wealthy women in other countries to give birth in the United States are not new.  According to abcnews.com, birthing tourism is on the upswing and is expected to continue.  Some websites advertise that as soon as the child born in the United States has turned 21, immigration laws allow them to sponsor their remaining family members for permanent residency and eventually citizenship.

Chinese citizens in the economic elite are also interested in sending their children to United States universities and colleges without incurring expensive additional tuition due to their status as foreign citizens.  Most United States colleges charge $5,000-15,000 more per year for foreign student tuition.

The website that ran the Chino Hills maternity mansion even went so far as to suggest ways for heavily pregnant women to hide their pregnancies from United States customs officials, to avoid being sent back home.  Their tactics included wearing very loose fitting clothing and having bags or accessories that worked to disguise the large pregnant belly.

In addition to Chinese birthing tourism, similar birthing hotels have opened for clientele from all over Asia and Eastern Europe.  These tend to be clustered in major United States cities with easy airport access.

Sources: abcnews.com, examiner.com

Women’s Rights Groups Unhappy With New Egyptian Constitution

Egypt’s new constitution has been the subject of intense debate and controversy, with many women’s rights groups expressing their dissatisfaction with the lack of adequate protections for women. The constitution, which was approved in a national referendum in April 2019, has been widely criticized for rolling back many of the gains that women have made in recent years. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the concerns and criticisms of women’s rights groups in Egypt.

Background

Egypt’s history of gender inequality predates the current government. For years, women have been excluded from many sectors of society, including politics, education, and the workforce. Women’s rights groups have been actively advocating for women’s rights and gender equality for decades, and have made significant strides in recent years. However, the current government’s policy changes threaten to reverse these gains.

Criticisms of the New Constitution

The new constitution has drawn significant criticism from women’s rights groups for several reasons. These include:

No Explicit Protection for Women’s Rights: The constitution does not provide explicit protections for women’s rights, which could be used to protect women from discrimination.

Removal of Equal Opportunities Clause: The new constitution removes a provision that mandated the state to ensure equal opportunities for all citizens regardless of gender, religion, or race.

Nationality Law Changes: The constitution allows Egyptian men married to foreigners to pass on their nationality to their children, but requires women to first obtain approval from a high-ranking official to pass on citizenship to their children.

Marriage and Divorce Laws: The new constitution gives religious clerics the power to oversee marriage and divorce laws, which could result in discriminatory laws that disadvantage women.

Implementation Challenges: Women’s rights groups have also expressed concerns that, even if the protections for women were in the new constitution, the implementation could be difficult due to the lack of political will, corruption, and outdated societal norms.

Consequences of Inaction

The consequences of inaction on women’s rights could be severe. Women constitute nearly half of Egypt’s population, and any policies or laws that limit their rights could have rippling effects on the entire nation’s economy, political stability, and societal development. The gender-based discrimination could lead to a larger wealth gap and access gaps in education, healthcare, and opportunities.

Conclusion

The new constitution in Egypt has been a significant setback for the women’s rights movement in the country. Women’s rights groups have voiced their disagreement with various aspects of the new constitution, which threatens to hinder the progress that has been made towards gender equality in recent years. The implementation of policies to combat gender inequality and increase women’s rights could lead to a more prosperous and developed Egypt for everyone. Therefore, it is crucial that efforts for gender equity and protection of women are not only supported but widely promoted and enforced throughout Egypt.

According to Amnesty International, women’s rights and people advocating for minority religious groups in Egypt are unhappy with a new proposed constitution.  The new laws, if enacted, would significantly limit freedoms in the country, which has recently been torn apart by revolution and uncertainty about what form the new government should take.

One of the biggest changes that some women’s rights groups wanted to see was an end to child labor.  However, many opposition political parties that were opposed to rules for the new governing assembly of Egypt boycotted the assembly to draft a constitution.  The leaders of those parties claim that the assembly is not representative of Egyptian society, and say that the people of Egypt will not accept the constitution in its current form.

Only seven women were part of the new 100 seat Egyptian assembly when it started.  However, after protests led to even more parties boycotting the assembly, most women have left the assembly.  According to the United Nations and Amnesty International, women are discussed only in the context of home and the family.

A State Department spokesperson in the United States said in a press statement that the proposed constitutional changes “raise concerns for many Egyptians and for the international community.”  The White House has so far refused to intervene on behalf of the groups who feel they have been unfairly treated by the new proposals.

In addition to women’s rights groups, a number of minority faiths are upset over a provision that allows for only three religious faiths in Egypt: Muslim, Christian, and Jewish.  Other religious groups, including the Baha’i, are excluded from the list of approved religions, and the constitution may also prohibit some types of Muslim practice.

One of the reasons these constitutional changes have been so unwelcome for many Egyptians is that the “Arab Spring” uprisings that gave rise to the new governmental negotiations was largely caused by groups who felt that the nation had not done enough to protect human rights.  The new constitution also continues to allow trying civilians in military courts, a practice vehemently opposed to many who participated in the Arab Spring revolts.

The one bright spot for women in the new constitutional changes is that a provision forcing women’s issues to be decided solely on the basis of Islamic law was discarded.  Excitement over the removal of this provision was short-lived, however, as Egyptian women discovered the new draft had also removed protections for discrimination on the basis of sex that had been proposed in earlier drafts.

According to the U.S. State Department, the “constitutional vacuum” in Egypt has created instability that “can only be resolved by the adoption of a constitution that … respects fundamental freedoms, individual rights, and the rule of law consistent with Egypt’s international commitments.”  The State Department encouraged Egyptian leaders to meet with opposition leaders to come to an agreement among all parties.

Sources: amnesty.org, un.org, state.gov

Violence Against Women Act Could Expire Soon

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is one of the largest pieces of legislation to help women in violent situations seek help. Since its enactment in 1994, the VAWA has been instrumental in preventing and addressing domestic violence, sexual assault, and other gender-based violence. However, the legislation is currently set to expire and its reauthorization has been met with opposition. This article explores the importance of VAWA, the challenges to its reauthorization, and what could happen if the law is allowed to expire.

Importance of VAWA

VAWA is a federal law that helps state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and individuals respond to and prevent domestic and sexual violence. It provides funding for education and training programs, law enforcement and prosecution initiatives, and other support services, including shelters and hotlines for victims of domestic violence. VAWA has demonstrated its effectiveness in reducing domestic violence and has helped countless women in violent situations gain access to the help they need.

Challenges to Reauthorization

Despite its effectiveness, the reauthorization of VAWA has been met with significant opposition from some lawmakers. One of the main points of contention is the language in the bill that expands the protection of individuals who may be particularly vulnerable to gender-based violence, such as immigrants, Native Americans, and the LGBTQ+ community. Supporters of the bill argue that these groups are more likely to experience violence and require additional protections under the law.

Opponents of VAWA have also raised concerns about the cost of the bill, arguing that it is a significant burden on taxpayers. Some have suggested defunding portions of the legislation or redirecting funds to other programs. However, advocates for the renewal of VAWA have stated that any changes to the bill must not sacrifice the protections afforded to victims of domestic and sexual violence.

Impact of Expiration

If the Violence Against Women Act is allowed to expire, it could have far-reaching consequences for women in violent situations. Without the provisions of the law, victims of gender-based violence may find it harder to access the resources and services they need, including legal assistance and counseling. Some advocates for VAWA argue that expiration would set back progress made in addressing gender-based violence and leave survivors more vulnerable.

Conclusion

VAWA has been a critical tool for addressing domestic and sexual violence in the United States for over 25 years. It has provided essential support services to victims and helped to reduce the incidence of gender-based violence in communities across the country. However, its reauthorization is currently facing challenges from some lawmakers, endangering the future of the act. When violence is a national problem, federal legislation protecting and providing resources for those experiencing domestic violence is necessary. As lawmakers consider the future of VAWA, it is important to remain vigilant and vocal for the protection of some of the country’s most vulnerable populations.

One of the biggest pieces of legislation that helps women in violent situations seek help is the Violence Against Women Act.  This law was signed into effect by Bill Clinton, and was a bipartisan piece of legislation when it was originally authored in 1996.  However, with both houses of Congress increasingly polarized, the Violence Against Women Act is in danger of expiring completely by the end of the year.

Currently, a renewal of the Violence Against Women Act has passed with bipartisan support in the United States Senate with a 68-31 total vote.  However, the House of Representatives is Republican controlled, unlike the Senate, and has so far blocked passage of the bill.

Supporters of the Violence Against Women Act point to the over sixty percent reduction in overall rates of domestic violence in the United States since the passage of VAWA.  However, with only two more weeks in the legislative session before the law expires, it seems increasingly unlikely that Congress will be able to push through a bill so that Obama can sign it back into law before most of its provisions expire.

The blocking of the Violence Against Women Act was considered by some women’s rights activists to be part of the “war on women” that they claim Republicans are waging.  According to these activists, the VAWA renewal block is just another example of policies unfriendly to women’s rights, including resistance to paycheck fairness and anti discrimination laws.

Before the Violence Against Women Act, it was sometimes difficult for police and prosecutors to be able to actually prosecute and convict abusers, even those who had repeatedly been violent toward a spouse or live-in partner.  Stalking was also a crime that was difficult to file a criminal charge for.

In addition to blocking the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, Republicans in the House of Representatives have also held up an increase in the issuance of U visas.  This is a type of immigration visa that is issued only to women who have been abused or raped.

If Congress does not vote to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act in the December “lame duck” session before the holiday recess, the legislative process to enact the VAWA will need to begin all over.  This may mean significant changes or modifications to the act’s wording or even its basic core elements.

Sources: senate.gov, house.gov

China Angers Women By Requiring Invasive Employment Exam

In a country where women already face numerous barriers to equal opportunity, the Chinese government has implemented a new requirement that many women are calling invasive and discriminatory. The exam, which is required for some jobs, requires women to undergo a gynecological exam and submit their results in order to be hired. The requirement has sparked outrage and protests, with many arguing that it violates their right to privacy and is an attempt to limit their employment opportunities. This article explores the controversy surrounding the exam and its potential impact on women’s rights in China.

The Exam

The requirement for a gynecological exam first became public in a job posting for a position at a police department in southwestern China. The posting stated that female applicants would be required to submit results of a gynecological exam in order to be considered for the position. The requirement was later reported to be common among some public sector and civil service jobs.

Opinions on the exam have been mixed, with some arguing that it is a necessary measure for ensuring employee health and safety. However, many women and human rights groups have expressed outrage at the requirement, stating that it is invasive, discriminatory, and a violation of their right to privacy. Some have gone further and claimed that the requirement is illegal and unconstitutional.

Protests and Backlash

The exam has sparked widespread protests and backlash from women across China. Photos and videos of women wearing giant underwear, emblazoned with a universal “no” symbol around the Chinese word for “exam,” circulated on social media, drawing attention to the issue. The protests have also included online petitions and letters addressed to government officials.

Many have also taken to social media to voice their discontent and share their experiences. Some women have reported being traumatized by the exam, while others have claimed that it is limiting their employment opportunities. One woman, who was required to undergo the exam for her job as a public school teacher, stated that it made her feel like “a piece of meat.”

Implications for Women’s Rights

The requirement for a gynecological exam has far-reaching implications for women’s rights in China. The exam perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes and reinforces the notion that women’s bodies are inherently suspect or problematic. It also sets a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into women’s health and bodily autonomy.

The exam comes at a time when women in China are already facing numerous barriers to equal opportunity. The country has one of the lowest rates of female labor force participation in the world, and women are routinely subject to discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. The requirement for a gynecological exam only further limits their employment opportunities and reinforces gender-based discrimination.

Conclusion

The requirement for a gynecological exam as part of certain job applications is a troubling development in a country where women are already facing numerous obstacles to equal opportunity. The requirement is invasive and discriminatory, and violates women’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy. While protests and public outcry have brought attention to the issue, it remains to be seen whether the government will take action to address these concerns and protect the rights of women in China. The need of the hour is for a more gender-inclusive workforce in all industries.

Women in China wore what looked like giant underwear, emblazoned with a universal “no” symbol around the Chinese word for “exam.”  The protest, against China’s government, revolves around an employment requirement that many say is invasive and some have claimed is illegal.

Both women and men in the United States often need to submit to brief physical examinations before employment.  However, in China, a practice has recently been called into question that requires young women to submit to gynecological examinations in order to enter positions in government.

Protests have begun in several cities, including Wuhan, because of a practice that the Chinese government has implemented in a way that female workers say is unfair.  While men are not required to have any kind of invasive medical examination before being allowed to take civil service jobs, women must have an exam that checks for tumors and sexually transmitted infections.  Women must also answer questions about their menstrual history that women say are invasive and have nothing to do with their qualifications as civil servants.

Women have consistently been discriminated against in the Chinese labor force, but protests have recently begun in which women have made a stand for greater privacy rights and equality under the law.

Out of China’s over 1.1 billion people,  just over a million apply for government jobs.  Because only 21,000 government jobs will need filled during the current year, this means that not even two percent of applicants will get the job they are looking for.

The protests come on the heels of the revelation that a Communist Party district chief in Chongquing was allowing contractors to win projects in exchange for sending female employees to sleep with the party chief.

While the Chinese government insists that the rules requiring examinations are simply to make sure that women do not have cancer or sexually transmitted diseases, workers contend that this is not a good enough reason to have the examination.  According to them, since their job roles will not require any contact of a type that could spread sexually transmitted diseases, this information is irrelevant to their future employer and could damage their reputation.

China’s official policies regarding employment discrimination may in fact be in conflict with these provisions. The women in the protest movement hope to have the exam requirement found illegal under current labor policies that apply nationwide.

Sources: businessinsider.com, globaltimes.cn