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.

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

Indian Supreme Court Takes Steps To Stop Street Harassment

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

The Issue of Street Harassment in India

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

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

The Impact of Street Harassment on Women

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

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

The Supreme Court’s Directives

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

New “Maternity Mansion” in California Raises Legal Questions

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

What are “Maternity Mansions”?

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

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

Legal and Ethical Questions

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: abcnews.com, examiner.com