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.

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

Texas Lactation Case Sets Stage for Breastfeeding Battle

Breastfeeding is a contentious issue in the United States and, in particular, Texas has become the latest battleground for the rights of mothers who choose to breastfeed. Recently, a lawsuit was filed in Houston against a real estate company that denied an employee access to a lactation room. The case, EEOC v. Houston Funding II, Ltd., could have far-reaching implications for breastfeeding mothers and employer responsibilities. This article provides an overview of the case, the legal issues at stake and the broader implications for women’s rights in the workplace.

The Case

The case started with a complaint filed in 2018 by a former employee of Houston Funding II, Ltd., a Houston-based real estate firm. The employee alleged that when she asked for accommodations to pump breast milk, her employer refused and subsequently fired her. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on the employee’s behalf, alleging that Houston Funding had violated federal law by denying her request for reasonable accommodations for lactation and subsequently terminating her employment.

Legal Issues at Stake

The laws related to lactation accommodations in the workplace are complex and still evolving. The lawsuit in question is being brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, among other factors. The EEOC claims that the employee was denied the ability to pump breast milk and, as a result, was subjected to sex discrimination, as well as retaliation when she was subsequently terminated.

A key issue in the case is whether the company’s failure to provide a designated lactation room was a violation of the law. The Affordable Care Act mandates that employers must provide a private space “other than a bathroom” for employees to pump breast milk. While the definition of what constitutes a “private space” is not explicitly defined, proponents of the law argue that it should include a lactation room with certain accommodations, such as a locking door, seating, and electrical outlets.

Implications for Women’s Rights

The outcome of the case could have significant implications for the rights of working mothers across the United States. The case highlights the ongoing struggle for women to gain equitable treatment in the workplace, particularly when it comes to breastfeeding, a natural and essential aspect of motherhood. Unfortunately, the realities of capitalism make accommodating for breastfeeding mothers difficult, resulting in a decrease of breastfeeding mothers in comparison to formula-fed babies.

With many women in the workforce balancing motherhood and a career, employers have a responsibility to accommodate their needs and protect their rights. Women’s rights advocates argue that employers should be required to provide lactation rooms and reasonable accommodations for employees who are breastfeeding, as they are protected under federal law. The EEOC v. Houston Funding II, Ltd. case is one example of the ongoing push for gender equality in the workplace and maternity accommodations.

Conclusion

The EEOC v. Houston Funding II, Ltd. case is poised to become a landmark case for breastfeeding mothers and women’s rights in the workplace. Employers need to be diligent in creating policy that accommodates breastfeeding mothers. Consequently, the case could set a precedent for how employers across the country are required to accommodate breastfeeding mothers, making motherhood more accessible in the workforce. Ultimately, it is incumbent on employers and society as a whole to understand and protect the rights of working mothers who choose to breastfeed.

Do women have the right to bring a breast pump to work in order to feed an infant at home?  That’s the question being posed to a court of appeals in Texas this month after a woman was fired from her job because she told her boss that she planned to pump breast milk at work after returning from pregnancy leave.

The case, EEOC v. Houston Funding II, Ltd., involves a debt collection firm where Donnicia Ventners was employed.  Ventners had worked for Houston Funding for two years when she gave birth to her daughter in December of 2008.  She had a caesarean section delivery and informed her workplace that her doctor would not allow her to return to work until an infection of her incision had healed.

When Ventners called about returning to the office following her pregnancy leave, she asked upper managers at the company whether she could pump breast milk in a private back office space.  According to management at the company, however, they had already assumed that Ventners had abandoned her job and would not be returning.  She was informed of this only at the time when she asked about pumping breast milk, not before.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the company under two different anti-discrimination statutes.  The first, Title VII, is the typical statute used to protect women from sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.  The second is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act or PDA, which guarantees women the right not to be discriminated against in the workplace due to pregnancy or childbirth.

The case hit a significant roadblock at the district court level, where a judge decided that lactation discrimination was not prohibited by either Title VII or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  According to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions are all covered, but the judge ruled that after the day when Ventners gave birth, “she was no longer pregnant and her pregnancy related conditions ended.”

This ruling struck many attorneys in the area of women’s rights as being very likely to be overturned on appeal.  The case was dubbed “The Great Texas Lactation Case” by a number of court watchers, and on appeal the judge so far has rejected arguments that breastfeeding is not in fact a pregnancy related condition.  Instead of arguing that lactation discrimination itself is acceptable, the attorneys for the debt collection firm are now arguing that discrimination due to a breast pump is not the same as discrimination due to breastfeeding or lactation itself.

Ventners’s case has still not been decided on the appellate level.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has maintained throughout court proceedings that breastfeeding is clearly a pregnancy related condition, and that regular expression of breast milk with a breast pump can be necessary to prevent discomfort and significant illnesses in breastfeeding mothers.  The EEOC’s position is that lactation discrimination is still illegal against employers nationwide under the provisions of the PDA and Title VII.

Sources: eeoc.gov, uscourts.gov

What is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified in 17 U.S.C. section 2000, was enacted on July 2, 1964 and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted in response to the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.  In addition to a number of titles in the act that prohibited discrimination in lodging, voter registration and education; the Civil Rights Act also codified Title VII which created rights for individuals to be free from discrimination in employment.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as codified, opens by stating that the purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is:

“To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes”

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has its main purpose in prohibiting discrimination in employment by employers based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Section 2000e-2 states that it shall be unlawful for an employer” (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

What Entities are Affected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

This term employer refers to those entities that employ 15 or more individuals for more than 20 weeks out of the calendar year.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also applies to employment agencies, labor organizations and training programs.

Are There Exceptions to Compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

In conjunction with the anti-discrimination laws adopted in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are exceptions to the law that you employers may not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  These are called Bona Fide Qualifications, or BFOQs.  An employer is permitted to take employment actions that would otherwise be held as discriminatory and in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, if the decision not to hire, train, promote, etc. is due to a valid employment decision.

The three part test for concluding whether an employment decision, that would otherwise be deemed as discriminatory, is a legitimate employment decision is:  (1) whether there is a direct relationship between the sex of the individual and the ability to perform the job; (2) the bona fide qualification relates directly to the central mission of the employment; and (3) there is no less restrictive reasonable alternative.

In the above mentioned exception an example would be where a woman was denied employment in a factory where the employee was required to lift a heavy amount of weight on a daily basis.  It is a bona fide employment decision that hiring a woman may not be in the best interest of the employer due, not to discrimination based on sex, but on the natural abilities that males have over females in manual labor.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act the provisions of the shall prohibit a school, college or university from failing to hire an individual based solely on their religion when that school, college, or university is owned whole, or in substantial part by a particular religious organization or the curriculum is of a specific religious nature.

In this situation it would not be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for a Catholic church to refuse employment to a Jewish individual in their church funded schools; especially if the employment required the promulgation of the catholic faith.

What Discriminatory Practices are Permitted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment based on religion, sex, race, color or national origin there are some exceptions to the rule that are outlined in section 2000e-2 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Under this section certain discriminatory policies are permitted when the employment involves federally recognized Native American tribes; religious groups performing work connected with the group’s activities; and bona fide non-profit private membership organizations.

Originally this list also included the federal government but under the revised Title VII of the Civil Rights Act it is now prohibited to discriminate in federal employment under section 2000e-16.

In addition, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not prohibit promotions, higher wages, and other benefits that go along with a bona fide seniority system.  In all cases, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not require, or permit, preferential treatment based on one’s classification as a protected class.

Throughout the decades since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act there have been a number of other codifications aiming at protecting a wider class of individuals from discrimination in the workplace.  This includes protection from sexual harassment; age discrimination, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; and individuals with disabilities, under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.  As of 2011 there exists no federal protection from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, although some states have made their own laws affecting discrimination against such individuals.

Who Do I Report violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act To?

If an individual has a complaint about a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or any other act that prohibits discrimination in employment that person must first file a complaint with the federal government through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is comprised of 5 members who are appointed by the President of the United States.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was created under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act with the purpose of investigating claims of discrimination in employment based on race, sex, color, religion and national origin.  Since its inception it has also been delegated the authority to investigate claims of age discrimination as well as discrimination based on perceived intelligence and disability.  In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may also investigate claims of disparaging treatment by employers based on an individual’s reporting, or negative reaction, to discrimination in the workplace.  The EEOC is also charged with the duty to intervene in civil actions based on employment discrimination after they have been filed first with the EEOC.

In most states in the Union there exist state operated organizations that investigate claims of employment discrimination.  These organizations are known as State Fair Employment Practices Agencies, or FEPAs.  All states in the Union have their own FEPAs that work separately from the EEOC except for Arkansas and Mississippi.

You may file a lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by going to one of their 53 field offices throughout the United States.  An individual seeking to report discrimination in the workplace may also visit the EEOC’s website at www.eeoc.gov for further information on where to file, getting a filing application, etc.  Under most situations an individual must file their claim for employment discrimination, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, within 180 days of the date of the discrimination.  This is extended to 300 days in some situations.  If the state where the individual is filing also has a FEPA that recognizes that specific discrimination the statute of limitations may be extended to 300 days.  It is important to contact both the EEOC and the local FEPA to determine what the actual filing deadline is.  If an individual fails to file on time it will bar any future civil suit for employment discrimination.

Case Law 

The case law is riddled with decisions involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the court’s interpretation of discrimination laws in the United States.

In Ricci v. Destefano the courts tackled an issue where the plaintiffs, white firemen, sued the local fire department for throwing out an exam that resulted in whites passing in an exceedingly higher proportion to minorities.  The court found that the test did not discriminate either on its face, or in effect.

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear the issue involved sex discrimination in the form of lower wages being paid to a female employee.  In this case the plaintiff, a female employee, had been given lower wages over an extended period of time.  Upon her discovery of the discriminatory treatment she filed suit.  The argument was that the statute of limitations should be tolled for every subsequent act of like discrimination, here the continuing issuance of discriminatory paychecks.  The court found that the 180 day statute of limitations did not get tolled to include past acts of discrimination and the plaintiff could only recover for the difference in pay that occurred over that 180 day period of time.

The case of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway v. White dealt with the issue of retaliation for reporting discriminatory treatment.  The court summed up the holding of the case by stating that “an employee seeking to prove retaliation will only need to show that the employee’s actions would have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge for discrimination.

In discussing sexual harassment allegations the case of Penn State University v. Sulders the court held that “a plaintiff alleging sexual harassment must show that an abusive working environment became so intolerable that resignation qualifies as a fitting response.”

In many discrimination cases the result rests on whether there is actual discrimination based on a protected class or whether that discrimination is incidental.  The issue of gender discrimination has been addressed in a number of cases.  In Wilson v. Delta State University the court discussed the matter of sex discrimination where an employee’s position was eliminated.  The plaintiff argued that the position was eliminated due to his disparaging remarks about how a fellow employee got her job because the employee was having an affair with the school administrator.  The court held that the termination was not a retaliatory measure by the University because “by gaining preferential treatment because one is a paramour of the employer does not discriminate against a specific sex but also effects individuals of the opposite sex and therefore a retaliation suit may not stand.”

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: A Comprehensive Look

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark legislation enacted by the United States government that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In this article, we take a comprehensive look at Title VII and its role in promoting equal employment rights in the United States.

The Background of Title VII

Title VII was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to end discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The legislation was a response to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which had highlighted the systematic oppression and discrimination faced by minority groups in the United States.

Key Provisions of Title VII

Title VII has several key provisions that form the basis of its protections against employment discrimination. These include:

1. Prohibition of Discrimination: Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or job applicants on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

2. Employer Coverage: Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments, as well as private companies and labor unions.

3. Employment Practices Covered: Title VII covers a range of employment practices, including hiring, firing, promotions, pay, training, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment.

4. Retaliation: Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees or job applicants who oppose discriminatory practices or file complaints regarding such practices.

5. Enforcement: Title VII is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which investigates claims of employment discrimination and can file lawsuits on behalf of aggrieved parties.

6. Remedies: Title VII provides a range of remedies for employment discrimination, including back pay, front pay, reinstatement, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

Impact of Title VII

Title VII has had a significant impact on the promotion of equal employment rights in the United States. Since its enactment, the EEOC has received millions of complaints of employment discrimination, and many of these complaints have resulted in successful legal actions against employers.

Title VII has also been instrumental in promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace, as employers have recognized the importance of creating a workforce that is reflective of the population it serves.

Conclusion

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark legislation that has been critical in promoting equal employment rights in the United States. Its provisions have provided a range of protections and remedies for employment discrimination, and its impact has been significant in raising awareness about discrimination and promoting diversity in the workplace. While challenges to Title VII still persist, the legislation remains an important tool in the fight for equal employment rights.

Women Make Unprecedented Gains in Historic 2012 Election

The 2012 United States election was a historic moment for women in politics as it marked unprecedented gains. The election saw a record number of women running for office and winning positions at all levels of government, signaling a notable change in the political landscape. This article explores the significant gains made by women in the 2012 election and the impact it has had on women’s representation in politics.

Unprecedented Number of Women on the Ballot

The 2012 United States election saw an unprecedented number of women on the ballot. A total of 298 women ran for Congress, representing a significant increase from previous years. Of these, 20 women were elected to the Senate, and 78 women were elected to the House of Representatives, bringing the total number of women in Congress to a record-breaking 98.

Women Taking the Lead in State and Local Elections

In addition to the gains made at the federal level, women also made significant inroads in state and local elections. Women won major victories in races for governor, statewide elected offices, and local offices across the country, including mayor, city council member, and school board member.

In several states, women shattered long-standing barriers. For example, Maggie Hassan became the first woman to be elected as governor of New Hampshire, and Tammy Baldwin became the first openly gay woman to be elected to the Senate. In Wisconsin, a record number of women were elected to the state legislature, and in Arizona, women won more seats in the state legislature than ever before.

Significance of Women’s Gains in 2012

The gains made by women in the 2012 election were significant for several reasons. First, it marked a breakthrough in women’s representation in politics. While women have been increasingly running for office in recent years, their gains in the 2012 election were unprecedented and showcased the growing power of women in politics.

Second, the election represented a shift in the political narrative toward issues of importance to women. With more women in office, there was a greater focus on issues such as equal pay, reproductive rights, and childcare, which had often been overlooked in the past.

Finally, the gains made by women in the 2012 election served as an inspiration to future female leaders. Seeing women break barriers and achieve high-level political positions encourages more women to run for office and engage in the political process.

Conclusion

The 2012 election marked a significant moment in the history of women in politics in the United States. The unprecedented gains made by women at all levels of government showcased the growing power of women in the political landscape and represented a shift in the political narrative toward issues of importance to women. As more women continue to engage in politics and run for office, the gains made in 2012 may just be the beginning of a larger movement toward greater representation of women in politics.

The 2012 election cycle was as good as it’s ever gotten for women in United States politics.  Issues relevant to women were at the forefront for much of the election cycle, and more women were elected to both houses of Congress than ever before in the nation’s history.

Women’s issues became hot button topics during the campaign, as presidential candidate Mitt Romney sparred with President Barack Obama over the best way to approach contraceptive coverage, abortion, and social programs for impoverished mothers.

When the dust had settled, there were two new United States records: 20 women in the Senate, up from the previously record-setting 17, and at least 81 women in the House of Representatives.  These weren’t the only records being broken—America’s first Hindu congresswoman and its first Buddhist congresswoman were also elected, and Tammy Baldwin became the first American senator to be openly gay.

Several of the most hotly contested races changed significantly in the polls when Republican candidates who had previously been considered safe started discussing their policies on rape exceptions for abortions.  While the majority of the American public has historically supported rape and incest exceptions to abortion laws, several Republican lawmakers criticized these exceptions.  Some even went so far as to say that pregnancy from rape was part of a divine plan.

This extreme point of view led to a significant gender gap in votes for Democratic and Republican politicians.  Several states showed 5-10 point gender gaps, with women in favor of President Obama over Mitt Romney while men favored the challenger.

Nancy Pelosi, minority leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, announced at a rally this week that she would be staying on as the lead Democrat in the House.  The former speaker also saluted the newest women to make it to the houses of Congress.

It has been a slow and not always steady climb for women to reach their current numbers in Congress.  The first Congresswoman was Jeannette Rankin, whose husband was a Congressman who died during his term in 1919.  She took over the remainder of her husband’s term and made history.

The first woman of color to be elected to the United States Congress was Patsy Mink in 1964, a Hawaiian representative of Asian descent, while the first Black woman to be elected to Congress was Shirley Chisholm, elected in 1968.  Only one woman of color has served in the United States Senate to date: Carol Moseley Braun, who represented the state of Illinois for a single term from 1993 to 1999.

As women become more important to American electoral politics, some observers believe it is likely that the numbers of women in Congress will continue to rise.  However, whether the increasing female influence on Congressional committees and offices will have an effect on the current level of divisiveness in the legislative body remains to be seen.

Sources: senate.gov, house.gov, Washington Post

Mentally Impaired Woman Will Not Have Abortion, Court Decides

A recent legal decision in the United Kingdom has stirred a heated debate over the rights of mentally impaired women to make decisions about their own bodies. The court ruled that a mentally impaired woman who was 22 weeks pregnant at the time could not have an abortion, despite the recommendation of doctors, due to concerns over her mental capacity to make such a decision. This ruling has sparked debates about the autonomy of mentally impaired women and their right to make decisions about their own bodies.

Background of the Case

The case involved a pregnant woman with severe learning disabilities who was reportedly incapable of making decisions about her own health and wellbeing. The woman’s doctors recommended an abortion, as they believed that continuing with the pregnancy would pose risks to both the mother and the child. However, the woman’s mother, who was acting as her legal guardian, opposed the abortion and argued that it was against their Catholic beliefs to terminate the pregnancy. The court ultimately sided with the mother and ruled that the woman could not have an abortion.

Controversy Over the Legal Decision

The legal decision has sparked controversy and debate over the rights of mentally impaired women to make decisions about their own bodies. Critics argue that denying a woman the right to have an abortion, regardless of her mental capacity, violates her fundamental rights and autonomy. They also point out that it sets a dangerous precedent for other cases involving mentally impaired individuals and their right to make medical decisions.

Proponents of the ruling, on the other hand, argue that it was made in the best interests of the woman, as the decision was made based on her mother’s wishes and the fact that the woman lacked the capacity to make such a decision herself. They also argue that the decision was consistent with Catholic beliefs and values, which prioritize the protection of life.

Impact on Mentally Impaired Women

The impact of this legal decision on mentally impaired women remains to be seen. Advocates for the rights of mentally impaired individuals argue that the ruling further undermines the autonomy and agency of those with disabilities. They also worry that this decision could set a precedent for future cases and limit the rights and freedoms of mentally impaired women.

On the other hand, supporters of the ruling argue that it was a reasonable and necessary decision made in the best interests of the woman, given her condition and those values that the court holds important.

Conclusion

The recent legal decision in the United Kingdom has sparked a contentious debate over the rights of mentally impaired women to make decisions about their own bodies. Critics of the decision argue that it violates the fundamental rights of women, while supporters of the decision argue that it was made in the best interests of the woman. Ultimately, the ruling raises important questions about the autonomy and agency of mentally impaired individuals and the limits of their decision-making power.

A 32 year old Nevada woman whose developmental disabilities leave her with the mental capacity of a six year old will not have her pregnancy terminated.  This news comes according to court documents detailing an agreement reached by both parties in a court case that had attracted national attention from people on both sides of the abortion debate.

Elisa Bauer, the woman in question, lived in a group home setting with several other developmentally disabled adults and supervisory personnel.  She managed to evade security and wander away from the group home, where she apparently had sex.  The father of the child Bauer is carrying has not yet been identified or located.  Because her communication abilities are not fully developed, the court could not determine whether she had consented to the sexual activity or whether it was forcible.

When staff at the group home realized Bauer was pregnant, she was taken to a doctor, who recommended an abortion.  Bauer’s fetal alcohol syndrome has led to several health problems, including epilepsy and bipolar disorder, that require medications that can have negative health consequences for fetal life.

However, the Bauers, who had adopted Elisa from Costa Rica when she was already 12 years old, disagreed with the doctor’s recommendation.  They consider themselves devout Catholics, and due to their anti-abortion beliefs wished to have Elisa carry her child to term.

Upon hearing the decision the Bauers had made, state social services authorities became involved in the case.  A guardian ad litem was appointed for Elisa Bauer, and a hearing was requested to determine whether the abortion was in Bauer’s best interest given the health risks involved.

Although Bauer’s parents attempted to have the hearings blocked, the judge ruled against them.  However, in order to avoid more courtroom battles over their daughter’s pregnancy, they began to develop a plan in conjunction with doctors to help control the risks of Elisa’s high risk pregnancy.

Rather than forcing Elisa Bauer to have an abortion, judge Egan Walker intends to have the court hold additional hearings regarding the best way to proceed in order to minimize any risks to Elisa’s health or the health of her soon to be born baby.

Parental healthcare decisions for children have been a complicated issue in jurisprudence for decades, especially in cases involving adults with mental impairments that cause them to require legal guardians.  Bauer’s parents, as her legal guardians, claimed in court hearings that they had exclusive rights to determine how their daughter’s medical treatment would proceed.  However, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that this was not correct, and that hearings could determine the proper course of medical treatment if the judge ruled them to be in Elisa’s best interest.

Doctors in the case have stated that Bauer’s epilepsy and bipolar disorder medications can be responsible for birth complications and defects, but that other patients with these disorders have carried pregnancies to term in the past with few ill effects, provided their pregnancies are managed with appropriate high-risk prenatal care.

Sources: ap.com, abcnews.com

Introduction

Abortion has been a highly contested issue in recent years, with politicians and activists on both sides of the debate holding strong opinions. However, a new report from the Guttmacher Institute sheds light on a troubling trend – the use of laws to force women to give birth or to undergo abortions against their will.

Forced Birth

The Guttmacher Institute’s report, titled “Restricting Abortion Around the World: Laws and Policies,” outlines how governments are increasingly using laws to force women to give birth. This includes mandatory waiting periods, counseling sessions, and ultrasound requirements that are designed to deter or delay women from having abortions.

In some cases, these laws are even more extreme. The report highlights cases in which women are forced to undergo cesarean sections or are arrested and imprisoned for miscarriages. The result is that women’s reproductive rights are being violated, and their right to make their own choices about their bodies is being undermined.

Forced Abortion

While forced birth is certainly a troubling trend, the Guttmacher Institute’s report also points out that there are situations in which women are forced to undergo abortions against their will. This can happen in countries that have strict policies limiting family size or that have discriminatory practices that target certain ethnic or religious groups.

In China, for example, the government’s “one-child policy” has led to reports of forced abortions and sterilizations. Women who become pregnant without permission or who exceed their family size quotas may be forcibly taken to clinics and forced to have abortions. This practice is a blatant violation of women’s reproductive rights, and it underscores the dangers of government policies that seek to control women’s bodies.

Conclusion

The Guttmacher Institute’s report on restrictive abortion laws is a wake-up call for anyone who cares about women’s rights and reproductive freedom. Whether through forced birth or forced abortion, governments around the world are using laws to exert control over women’s bodies, and the consequences are often devastating.

It’s time for policymakers, activists, and ordinary citizens to stand up and push back against these practices. We must work to ensure that women have access to the information, resources, and healthcare they need to make informed choices about their bodies and their futures. Anything less is an unacceptable violation of human rights.

Abortion took center stage as an issue women and men were interested in during this year’s election cycle.  A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, compiled based on data and policies from governments around the world, reports that the law is being used in several different ways to prevent women from making informed reproductive choices.

The United States is curtailing women’s access to abortions at the same time that women in other nations are being compelled to have abortions against their will.

In China, a rural mother, Feng Jianmei, was photographed being forced into an abortion while seven months pregnant.  Dissidents who have protested against the nation’s policies of forced abortions, sterilizations, and even infanticide have been punished harshly—some have simply disappeared into the Chinese prison system.

China is not the first country to curtail people’s reproductive freedoms by telling them that they could not have children.  India and Peru have both had forced sterilization efforts on a massive scale.  The United States also forcibly sterilized tens of thousands of women, often those with mental or physical disabilities or members of racial or ethnic minorities.

At the same time, according to the Guttmacher Institute, reproductive coercion has been occurring in other countries in a radically different direction.  In Romania in the 1980s, government policies were so strict about forbidding abortion and encouraging reproduction that women were forced to schedule monthly gynecological examinations in order to ensure that they had not had an illegal abortion.  Rates of illegal abortions still climbed, as did infant mortality and the number of children left in state care.

Turkey, Iran, and other culturally Muslim nations have also been spearheading efforts to curtail women’s ability to get an abortion.  Turkey almost made all abortions illegal earlier this year by allowing abortion only through 4 weeks of pregnancy—before most women even realize they are pregnant.

Iran, which had previously encouraged reproductive choice and family planning until it had become one of the Muslim nations with the highest rates of modern contraceptive use, has now begun to enact some anti-abortion legislation.

In the United States, too, abortion and contraception find themselves under intense scrutiny, particularly by conservative forces in federal and state legislatures.  Evangelical Christians in the United States have led a “pro-life” movement dedicated to stamping out abortion, which they decry as murder.  In many states, they have had a great deal of success limiting access to abortions and other reproductive health care by imposing waiting periods, notification requirements, and special building codes for abortion clinics.

One of the newest ways that conservatives have attempted to restrict abortion access is by requiring extensive abortion counseling, often with specific language to be used.  In some cases, the language required by the state legislatures during abortion counseling contains misinformation, including information suggesting a correlation between abortions and breast cancer rates and infertility.

Sources: guttmacher.org, house.gov