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.

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

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