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

New Report Says Women Forced to Give Birth, Forced to Abort

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

Supreme Court Ruling Affects Protesters in Abortion Debate

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

Fisher Case Puts Affirmative Action in the Spotlight

Introduction

Affirmative action has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades, but it is now in the spotlight once again due to Abigail Fisher’s case against the University of Texas Austin. The case has significant implications for not just racial affirmative action, but also for policies that aim to increase diversity in traditionally male-dominated fields.

The Background

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement in 2005 left a vacancy on the Supreme Court that was eventually filled by conservative Justice Samuel Alito. This change opened the door for Fisher’s case to potentially reshape affirmative action policies across the country.

Abigail Fisher claimed that she was denied admission to the University of Texas Austin based on her race, and she argued that the school’s use of affirmative action was unconstitutional. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the University of Texas in a 4-3 decision.

The Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher’s case has significant implications for affirmative action policies. While the ruling affirmed that affirmative action is constitutional, it also placed limitations on how universities can use race as a factor in admissions decisions.

The decision allows universities to consider race in admissions, but only as a means of promoting diversity and only if race-neutral methods of achieving diversity are insufficient. This means that schools must prove that their affirmative action policies are necessary to achieve a diverse student body.

The case has broader implications for other forms of affirmative action as well. Policies that aim to increase diversity in traditionally male-dominated fields, for example, could be affected if universities are limited in their use of affirmative action.

The Future of Affirmative Action

The Fisher case and the Supreme Court’s decision highlight the ongoing debate surrounding affirmative action and its place in American society. Supporters of affirmative action argue that it is necessary to promote diversity and correct for past injustices, while opponents claim that it is unconstitutional and perpetuates discrimination.

As future cases make their way through the courts, it is likely that affirmative action will continue to be a contentious issue. The Fisher case, however, provides a framework for universities to use race-conscious admissions policies in a way that is constitutional and promotes diversity.

Conclusion

The Fisher case has put affirmative action in the spotlight, and its implications will be felt for years to come. While the Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action, it also placed limitations on how universities can use race in admissions decisions.

As the debate over affirmative action continues, it is important to remember the importance of diversity in American society and the need to promote equal opportunities for all.

When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired in 2005, she left room for a new swing vote to be nominated who could change affirmative action policy in the United States. Since O’Connor was replaced with the conservative Samuel Alito, Abigail Fisher’s case against the University of Texas Austin may change how affirmative action looks in the United States. The case has implications not only for racial affirmative action, but also for policies like affirmative action for women applying to schools of engineering or other traditionally male fields.

Fisher’s case was argued in front of the Supreme Court in October, and the justices are expected to issue a ruling in the spring.

According to Abigail Fisher, a recent graduate of Louisiana State University, her earning power would have been significantly higher if she had graduated from the University of Texas Austin. What’s more, she claims that the reason she was not able to attend the University of Texas is that the university’s affirmative action policies discriminated against her for being white.

It is true that the University of Texas Austin uses race as a factor in its admissions policy. However, in accordance with the 2003 Supreme Court opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, race is only used as one of many factors in a holistic rating of a candidate. The ruling in Grutter allowed for this kind of holistic scoring system, while explicitly ruling that quota systems for racial or gender based affirmative action would not be considered constitutional.

However, Fisher’s case is an interesting one in several different ways. For one thing, it’s not clear that Fisher would have actually been granted admission to the University of Texas regardless of whether her racial background was white, black, or any other. According to the University’s metrics, Fisher’s lackluster standardized test scores and high school GPA would have been enough to bar her from admission even with additional points assigned for hardships or racial factors.

Additionally, it can be difficult for students to actually prove that they would have derived any benefit from having gone to a different school.

The case has been made even more interesting for court observers by Justice Elena Kagan, who recused herself from the case due to having worked on it in her capacity as the United States Solicitor General under Barack Obama. This means that unlike in most Supreme Court cases, there is the possibility that the case would be tied, with the court’s four most conservative justices ruling against the Texas policy and the four liberal justices ruling in the university’s favor.

In the event of a tie, the lower court’s ruling is affirmed. In this case, that would mean the University’s policy is allowed to stand, which the appeals court had previously ruled. Questions during oral arguments from the conservative justices seemed to suggest that they, at least, would prefer to end the University’s affirmative action policies.

Sources: uscourts.gov, New York Times

Appeals Court Rules on Parental Notification Waiver

Introduction

Parental notification laws have been a contentious issue in the United States for many years. In Florida, a recent case has brought the issue to the forefront once again. This article will provide an overview of the recent appeals court ruling regarding a parental notification waiver for a teenage girl seeking an abortion.

Background on Florida’s Parental Notification Law

In Florida, a state law requires that parents be notified when their underage daughter seeks an abortion, with some exceptions for cases of medical emergency or judicial waiver. The law has faced legal challenges in the past, with opponents arguing that it places an unfair burden on underage girls seeking abortions.

The Recent Appeals Court Ruling

The most recent challenge to Florida’s parental notification law came in the form of a teenage girl seeking an abortion. The girl requested a waiver of the notification requirement, citing concerns about her safety and well-being if her parents were notified.

After a lower court denied the waiver request, the case went to the appeals court. The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to reverse the lower court’s decision, granting the teenage girl the waiver she requested.

Impact of the Ruling on Florida’s Parental Notification Law

The recent appeals court ruling has drawn attention to the issue of parental notification laws in Florida and beyond. Pro-choice advocates argue that these laws place undue burdens on underage girls seeking abortions and can be detrimental to their health and well-being.

On the other hand, supporters of parental notification laws argue that parents have a right to be involved in their child’s decision to have an abortion and that these laws are necessary to protect underage girls from potential harm.

Conclusion

The recent appeals court ruling on a parental notification waiver for a teenage girl seeking an abortion in Florida brings attention to the ongoing debate over parental notification laws in the United States. While these laws are designed to protect minors, they also have the potential to cause harm and limit access to necessary healthcare services. As the debate over reproductive rights continues, it is important to consider the impact that these laws have on the lives of underage girls and their families.

Florida’s statute requiring parental notification in most situations where a girl under 18 is seeking an abortion was put to the test earlier this week. According to Florida 10th Judicial Circuit documents, appeals court judges ruled 2-1 to reverse a lower court’s decision denying a waiver of parental notification requirements to a teenage girl.

Initially, a judge in Polk County told the girl that she would not be allowed to obtain a parental notification waiver. The girl had expressed fear over talking to her mother about the procedure and worried that she would be unwelcome in her home. She had no meaningful contact with her father.

The teen is identified as Jane Doe in court documents to protect her privacy in this sensitive case. The 2nd District Court of Appeal’s ruling indicated that two of the three judge panel believed that the girl had exercised reasonable judgment when asking for a parental notification waiver and permission to seek an abortion.

According to the majority, made up of Judge Douglas Wallace and Judge Stevan Northcutt, the girl’s fears about her mother seemed grounded in facts, and the girl had also expressed fears about an inability to continue academically if she were to have her child. Rather than a “frivolous schoolgirl,” they said that the girl had acted maturely and with regard for her academic and economic future.

The 17 year old Jane Doe says she became pregnant after a night of heavy drinking at a party and has only vague recollections of the events in question. This caused the dissenting judge to question her level of judgment and ability to make a decision concerning her pregnancy.

Florida laws allow judges a great deal of discretion in allowing or forbidding a parental notification waiver. Judges are asked to consider several factors in their determinations, including the age of the minor involved, their level of maturity, intelligence, credibility, and whether they are capable of understanding and consenting to the medical risks involved with the abortion procedure.

Judge Anthony Black, in his dissent, said that too much attention had been paid to the words in the girl’s testimony. However, he said, the trial judge in the case had observed what he considered to be troubling demeanor, including what he claimed was a “cavalier” attitude toward the abortion procedure.

Cases involving parental notification waivers can often involve judicial back and forth that delays abortions by weeks or even months—which can mean that by the time the issue is finally decided, a girl is prohibited from having an abortion either by statute or because of the higher price of late term abortions.

Source: flcourts.org

Women’s Rights Take Big Step Back in Iran

Introduction

A new law passed by Iran’s Parliament has dealt a significant blow to women’s rights in the country. Under the new law, women under the age of 40 will need permission from a male guardian in order to obtain a passport or travel outside the country. The passage of this law has sparked outrage and concern among women’s rights advocates and human rights groups around the world.

History of Women’s Rights in Iran

Women’s rights have long been a contentious issue in Iran. Despite making strides in recent years, women in Iran still face significant challenges and restrictions. For example, women are required to wear headscarves in public, and are subject to discrimination in areas such as education and employment.

New Law Restricts Women’s Freedom of Movement

The new law passed by Iran’s Parliament is a significant setback for women’s rights. Under the law, women under the age of 40 will not be allowed to obtain a passport or travel outside the country without the permission of a male guardian, such as a father or husband. This restriction not only limits women’s freedom of movement, but also reinforces patriarchal structures that prioritize male authority and control over women’s lives.

Impact on Women’s Lives

The passage of this law has significant implications for women’s lives in Iran. It limits their ability to travel for work, education, or leisure, and reinforces gender inequality in the country. The law also perpetuates a cycle of discrimination and oppression that affects not only women, but also the broader society.

International Response and Advocacy Efforts

The passage of this law has sparked outrage and concern among human rights groups and women’s rights advocates around the world. Many have demanded that the Iranian government repeal the law and take steps to promote gender equality and women’s rights in the country. International pressure and advocacy efforts may be necessary to effect change and protect the rights of women in Iran.

Conclusion

The passage of the new law in Iran restricting women’s freedom of movement is a significant setback for women’s rights in the country. It reinforces patriarchal structures and perpetuates discrimination against women. Advocacy efforts and international pressure may be necessary to promote gender equality and protect the rights of women in Iran.

The precarious status of women in Iran has taken another step backwards with the passage of a new law in Iranian Parliament. According to the text of the new law, which was passed by Iran’s 290 seat Parliament this week, women under the age of 40 will be required to obtain permission from their father or other male guardian before being permitted to obtain a passport or travel outside the country.

Prior to the passage of the new law by parliament, the nation required all people under 18 to receive permission from their father or other male guardian at the time of obtaining a passport. Women who had attained the age of majority were required to obtain permission from their husbands if they were married, but single women over 18 did not have any requirements that limited their ability to obtain a passport. Now, even single women would be required to have parental permission to travel—Iranian women already required permission to marry, regardless of their age.

Iranian women’s rights activists are furious over the move, which they say is another in a series of escalating political backlashes to women trying to assert their rights in the Islamic republic. They note that Iran’s government still allows girls to marry at age 13, and will even allow this age to drop lower if they believe that Islamic law allows it in a particular circumstance.

The rights of women in Iran have varied substantially over the nation’s history. Historically, while Persia (the older name for Iran) was a male-dominated society, it allowed a substantial amount of room for women’s contributions. Mid-20th century reforms made it so women were permitted to receive an education and even become part of government.

However, when the current Islamic Republic of Iran government started after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, that government immediately ordered a number of traditionalist reforms that restricted the freedoms of women. For example, while many Iranian women had chosen to go about their day in public before the revolution without a hijab, or headscarf, new rules required headscarves to be worn at all times when women were in public.

Some positive reforms for women have stuck in the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the high rates of education for women and girls. However, a recent change to the educational laws of Iran also means that there will be fewer college age women attending school there. Government forces recently moved to restrict women from studying any course of study that was deemed too masculine, including everything from engineering to foreign languages.

Critics of Iran’s new policies say that they are transparent attempts to try to reverse the progress that Iranian women have made over the last decade in overturning oppressive laws and making steps toward equality. Protests are expected in the capital of Tehran over the new travel restrictions for single women, as well as over other recent policy changes that have affected women negatively.

Sources: awid.org, state.gov

Jim Crow Laws

Introduction

Jim Crow laws were a series of state and local laws in the southern United States that enforced racial segregation and discrimination against African Americans. These laws were in effect from the late 1800s until the mid-1960s and had a significant impact on American history.

Origins and Purpose of Jim Crow Laws

Jim Crow laws were named after a popular 19th-century minstrel show character and were designed to maintain white supremacy in the South. The laws were passed by state and local governments and enforced racial segregation in public spaces such as schools, parks, and transportation.

Segregation in Public Spaces

Under Jim Crow laws, African Americans were forced to use separate facilities from whites, including separate schools, water fountains, and restaurants. They were not allowed to sit in the front of buses or attend the same schools as whites.

Voting Rights Restrictions

Jim Crow laws also restricted African Americans’ right to vote, through a range of tactics such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses. These laws were designed to effectively disenfranchise black voters, denying them the right to participate in the democratic process.

Resistance and Overturning of Jim Crow Laws

Despite their intended purpose, Jim Crow laws sparked widespread resistance and activism among African Americans and their allies. Civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks led protests and movements to challenge these discriminatory laws and push for racial equality.

The legal system also played a role in overturning Jim Crow laws. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, paving the way for further legal challenges to discriminatory laws.

Legacy of Jim Crow Laws

Despite being officially abolished in the 1960s, the legacy of Jim Crow laws continues to impact American society today. African Americans continue to experience systemic racism and discrimination, often in the form of economic and social inequality.

Conclusion

Jim Crow laws were a dark period in American history, reflecting deeply ingrained attitudes of racial superiority. While they have been officially overturned, their legacy continues to shape society today, underscoring the ongoing need to fight against racism and discrimination in all its forms.

Jim Crow Laws

One of the most shameful chapters in United States legal history is the proliferation and enforcement of so-called “Jim Crow laws,” implemented after Reconstruction to take away the rights of newly freed black people. For decades, Jim Crow laws prevented black U.S. citizens and residents from enjoying the same facilities and public spaces that white people were allowed to use. Although these laws were overturned by important court cases and federal statutes in the mid-20th century, some of their effects can still be felt today.

How Jim Crow Laws Began

In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, Congress worked to pass three Constitutional amendments. The first, the Thirteenth Amendment, specifically forbade slavery except as punishment for a crime. The Fourteenth Amendment granted due process rights and equal protection to all American citizens. The Fifteenth Amendment granted black Americans an equal right to vote. Southern states opposed these laws vociferously, but were forced into accepting them in order to rejoin the United States without incurring sanctions.

The Reconstruction period from 1865 to 1877 was a time of patchwork laws regarding the legal status of black Americans. However, soon after, states began to pass a series of laws that limited where black people could go and what they could do. Segregation became the norm, on public transportation, at drinking fountains, and in public restrooms, as well as at restaurants and hotels. Discrimination was widely practiced and extremely pervasive.

Plessy v. Ferguson

The first major challenge to the Jim Crow laws came in the form of Plessy v. Ferguson, in which Homer Plessy, a man who was one-eighth black, sat in a “whites only” part of a public transit vehicle. When he was removed due to Louisiana’s laws, he sued in federal court, saying that his rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated.

The court didn’t see it that way. Ignoring the fact that Louisiana’s train cars for blacks and whites were far from equally appointed, the court ruled that mere separation of black and white people didn’t constitute illegal discrimination. Jim Crow laws were allowed to continue under the doctrine of “separate but equal” set down in Plessy v. Ferguson, even though much as in Louisiana, facilities were rarely if ever actually equal for blacks and whites.

Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act

The first court case that reversed the precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas. The judges in this case ruled unanimously that separate facilities were inherently unequal, and required schools to be integrated.

However, without enforcement powers, it was very difficult for a single Supreme Court ruling to make any dent in the Jim Crow laws. It took the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made federal funding contingent on integration, to force states to end their discriminatory laws. Slowly, the Jim Crow laws became relegated to history textbooks as they were written out of state codes.

Kansas-Nebraska Act Text

Introduction

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a piece of legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in 1854. It was controversial at the time and is still remembered today for its impact on the issue of slavery in America. In this article, we will provide an overview of the Kansas-Nebraska Act text, including its history, provisions, and impact.

History of the Kansas-Nebraska Act

In the years leading up to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, tensions were growing between the Northern and Southern states over the issue of slavery. In an effort to ease these tensions and facilitate the expansion of the nation, Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois proposed a bill that would divide the territory into two new states: Kansas and Nebraska.

The bill was controversial because it proposed that the issue of slavery in these new states would be decided by popular sovereignty, meaning that the residents of each state would vote on whether or not to allow slavery. This was a departure from the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery north of the 36° 30′ parallel.

Provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act Text

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a complex piece of legislation, but some of its key provisions included:

– The territory of Kansas and Nebraska would be divided, with Kansas situated to the south and Nebraska to the north.

– The issue of slavery in these new states would be decided by popular sovereignty, meaning that the residents of each state would vote on whether or not to allow slavery.

– The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery north of the 36° 30′ parallel, would be repealed.

Impact of the Kansas-Nebraska Act Text

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was controversial from the beginning and had a significant impact on the issue of slavery in America. The act led to the formation of the Republican Party, which was founded in opposition to the expansion of slavery into new territories.

The act also led to a period of violence in Kansas, known as “Bleeding Kansas,” in which pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces clashed over the issue of whether or not to allow slavery in the state. This violence foreshadowed the coming Civil War and highlighted the deep-seated divisions between the North and South over the issue of slavery.

Conclusion

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a landmark piece of legislation that had a significant impact on the issue of slavery in America. Its provisions, which allowed for popular sovereignty in deciding the issue of slavery in new states, were controversial at the time and led to a period of violence in Kansas. While the act was repealed in 1860, its legacy continues to be felt today and serves as a reminder of the challenges that America has faced in its struggle for equality and justice.

An Act to Organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the following limits, except such portions thereof as are hereinafter expressly exempted from the operations of this act, to wit: beginning at a point in the Missouri River where the fortieth parallel of north latitude crosses the same; then west on said parallel to the east boundary of the Territory of Utah, the summit of the Rocky Mountains; thence on said summit northwest to the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the territory of Minnesota; thence southward on said boundary to the Missouri River; thence down the main channel of said river to the place of beginning, be, and the same is hereby, created into a temporary government by the name of the Territory Nebraska; and when admitted as a State or States, the said Territory or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of the admission: Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to inhibit the government of the United States from dividing said Territory into two or more Territories, in such manner and at such time as Congress shall deem convenient and proper, or from attaching a portion of said Territory to any other State or Territory of the United States: Provided further, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining the Indians in said Territory’ so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or include any territory which, by treaty with any Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the territorial line or jurisdiction of any State or Territory; but all such territory shall excepted out of the boundaries, and constitute no part of the Territory of Nebraska, until said tribe shall signify their assent to the President of the United States to be included within the said Territory of Nebraska or to affect the authority of the government of the United States make any regulations respecting such Indians, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to the government to make if this act had never passed.

SEC. 2. And Be it further enacted, That the executive power and authority in and over said Territory of Nebraska shall be vested in a Governor who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States. The Governor shall reside within said Territory, and shall be commander-in-chief of the militia thereof. He may grant pardons and respites for offences against the laws of said Territory, and reprieves for offences against the laws of the United States, until the decision of the President can be made known thereon; he shall commission all officers who shall be appointed to office under the laws of the aid Territory, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

SEC. 3. And Be it further enacted, That there shall be a Secretary of said Territory, who shall reside therein, and hold his office for five years, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States; he shall record and preserve all the laws and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly hereinafter constituted, and all the acts and proceedings of the Governor in his executive department; he shall transmit one copy of the laws and journals of the Legislative Assembly within thirty days after the end of each session, and one copy of the executive proceedings and official correspondence semi-annually, on the first days of January and July in each year to the President of the United States, and two copies of the laws to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to be deposited in the libraries of Congress, and in or case of the death, removal, resignation, or absence of the Governor from the Territory, the Secretary shall be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to execute and perform all the powers and duties of the Governor during such vacancy or absence, or until another Governor shall be duly appointed and qualified to fill such vacancy.

SEC 4. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power and authority of said Territory shall be vested in the Governor and a Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly shall consist of a Council and House of Representatives. The Council shall consist of thirteen members, having the qualifications of voters, as hereinafter prescribed, whose term of service shall continue two years. The House of Representatives shall, at its first session, consist of twenty-six members, possessing the same qualifications as prescribed for members of the Council, and whose term of service shall continue one year. The number of representatives may be increased by the Legislative Assembly, from time to time, in proportion to the increase of qualified voters: Provided, That the whole number shall never exceed thirty-nine. An apportionment shall be made, as nearly equal as practicable, among the several counties or districts, for the election of the council and representatives, giving to each section of the Territory representation in the ratio of its qualified voters as nearly as may be. And the members of the Council and of the House of Representatives shall reside in, and be inhabitants of, the district or county, or counties for which they may be elected, respectively. Previous to the first election, the Governor shall cause a census, or enumeration of the inhabitants and qualified voters of the several counties and districts of the Territory, to be taken by such persons and in such mode as the Governor shall designate and appoint; and the persons so appointed shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor. And the first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, both as to the persons who shall superintend such election and the returns thereof, as the Governor shall appoint and direct; and he shall at the same time declare the number of members of the Council and House of Representatives to which each of the counties or districts shall be entitled under this act. The persons having the highest number of legal votes in each of said council districts for members of the Council, shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected to the Council; and the persons having the highest number of legal votes for the House of Representatives, shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected members of said house: Provided, That in case two or more persons voted for shall have an equal number of votes, and in case a vacancy shall otherwise occur in either branch of the Legislative Assembly, the Governor shall order a new election; and the persons thus elected to the Legislative Assembly shall meet at such place and on such day as the Governor shall appoint; but thereafter, the time, place, and manner of holding and conducting all elections by the people, and the apportioning the representation in the several counties or districts to the Council and House of Representatives, according to the number of qualified voters, shall be prescribed by law, as well as the day of the commencement of the regular sessions of the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That no session in any one year shall exceed the term of forty days, except the first session, which may continue sixty days.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years who shall be an actual resident of said Territory, and shall possess the qualifications hereinafter prescribed, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory; but the qualifications of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States and those who shall have declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act: And provided further, That no officer, soldier, seaman, or marine, or other person in the army or navy of the United States, or attached to troops in the service of the United States, shall be allowed to vote or hold office in said Territory, by reason of being on service therein.

SEC. 6. And Be it further enacted, That the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents. Every bill which shall have passed the Council and House of Representatives of the said Territory shall, before it become a law, be presented to the Governor of the Territory; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it with his objections to the house in which it originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration two thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, to be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within three days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Assembly, by adjournment, prevents its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That all township, district, and county officers, not herein otherwise provided for, shall be appointed or elected, as the case may be, in such manner as shall be provided by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Nebraska. The Governor shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council, appoint all officers not herein otherwise provided for; and in the first instance the Governor alone may appoint all said officers, who shall hold their offices until the end of the first session of the Legislative Assembly; and shall lay off the necessary districts for members of the Council and House of Representatives, and all other officers.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That no member of the Legislative Assembly shall hold, or be appointed to, any office which shall have been created, or the salary or emoluments of which shall have been increased, while he was a member, during the term for which he was elected, and for one year after the expiration of such term; but this restriction shall not be applicable to members of the first Legislative Assembly; and no person holding a commission or appointment under the United States, except Postmasters, shall be a member of the Legislative Assembly, or hold any office under the government of said Territory.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the judicial power of said Territory shall be vested in a Supreme Court, District Courts, Probate Courts, and in Justices of the Peace. The Supreme Court shall consist of a chief justice and two associate justices, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, and who shall hold a term at the seat of government of said Territory annually, and they shall hold their offices during the period of four years, and until their successor shall be appointed and qualified. The said Territory shall be divided into three judicial districts, and a d district court shall be held in each of said districts by one of the justices of the Supreme Court, at such times and places as may be prescribed by of law; and the said judges shall, after their appointments, respectively, reside in the districts which shall be assigned them. The jurisdiction of the several courts herein provided for, both appellate and original, and that of the probate courts and of justices of the peace, shall be as limited by law: Provided, That justices of the peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy when the title or boundaries of land may be in dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundred dollars; and the said supreme and districts courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common law jurisdiction. Each District Court, or the judge thereof, shall appoint its clerk, who shall also be the register in chancery, and shall keep his office at the place where the court may be held. Writs of error, bills of exception, and appeals, shall be allowed in all cases from the final decisions of said district courts to the Supreme Court, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law; but in no case removed to the Supreme Court shall trial by jury be allowed in said court. The Supreme Court, or the justices thereof, shall appoint its own clerk, and every clerk shall hold his office at the pleasure of the court for which he shall have been appointed. Writs of error, and appeals from the final decisions of said Supreme Court, shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the circuit courts of the United States, where the value of the property, or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars; except only that in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error, or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said Supreme Court, without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except also that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, from the decision of the said Supreme Court created by this act, or of any judge thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus, involving the question of personal freedom: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to or affect the provisions to the ” act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,” approved February twelfth, seventeen hundred and ninety-three, and the ” act to amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act,” approved September eighteen, eighteen hundred and fifty; and each of the said district courts shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and Laws of the United States as is vested in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States; and the said Supreme and District Courts of the said Territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same are granted by the judges of the United States in the District of Columbia; and the first six days of every term of said courts, or so much thereof as shall be necessary, shall be appropriated to the trial of causes arising under the said constitution and laws, and writs of error and appeal in all such cases shall be made to the Supreme Court of said Territory, the same as in other cases. The said clerk shall receive in all such cases the same fees which the clerks of the district courts of Utah Territory now receive for similar services.

SEC. 10. And Be it further enacted, That the provisions of an act entitled “An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,” approved February twelve, seventeen hundred and ninety-three, and the provisions of the act entitled ” An act to amend, and supplementary to, the aforesaid act,” approved September eighteen, eighteen hundred and fifty, be, and the same are hereby, declared to extend to and be in full force within the limits of said Territory of Nebraska.

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That there shall be appointed an Attorney for said Territory, who shall continue in office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall receive the same fees and salary I as the Attorney of the United States for the present Territory of Utah. There shall also be a Marshal for the Territory appointed, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall execute all processes issuing from the said courts when exercising their jurisdiction as Circuit and District Courts of the United States; he shall perform the duties, be subject to the same regulation and penalties, and be entitled to the same fees, as the Marshal of the District Court of the United States for the present Territory of Utah, and shall, in addition, be paid two hundred dollars annually as a compensation for extra services.

SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That the Governor, Secretary, Chief Justice, and Associate Justices, Attorney and Marshal, shall be nominated, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed by the President of the United States. The Governor and a Secretary to be appointed as aforesaid, shall, before they act as such, respectively take an oath or affirmation before the District Judge or some Justice of the Peace in the limits of said Territory, duly authorized to administer oaths and affirmations by the laws now in force therein, or & before the Chief Justice, or some Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices, which said oaths, when so taken, shall be certified by the person by whom the same shall have been taken; and such certificates shall be received and recorded by the said Secretary among the Executive proceedings; and the Chief Justice and Associate Justices, and all other civil officers in said Territory, before they act as such, shall take a like oath or affirmation before the said Governor or Secretary, or some Judge or Justice of the Peace of the Territory, who may be duly commissioned and qualified, which said oath or affirmation shall be certified and transmitted by the person taking the same to the Secretary, to be by him recorded as aforesaid; and, afterwards, the like oath or affirmation shall be taken, certified, and recorded, in such manner and form as may be prescribed by law. The Governor shall receive an annual salary of two thousand five hundred dollars. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices shall each receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The said salaries shall be paid quarter-yearly, from the dates of the respective appointments, at the Treasury of the United States; but no such payment shall be made until said officers shall have entered upon the duties of their respective appointments. The members of the Legislative Assembly shall be entitled to receive three dollars each per day during their attendance at the sessions thereof, and three dollars each for every twenty miles’ travel in going to and returning from the said sessions, estimated according to the nearest usually travelled route; and an additional allowance of three dollars shall be paid to the presiding officer of each house for each day he shall so preside. And a chief clerk, one assistant clerk, a sergeant-at-arms, and doorkeeper, may be chosen for each house; and the chief clerk shall receive four dollars per day, and the said other officers three dollars per day, during the session of the Legislative Assembly; but no other officers shall be paid by the United States: Provided, That there shall be but one session of the legislature annually, unless, on an extraordinary occasion, the Governor shall think proper to call the legislature together. There shall be appropriated, annually, the usual sum, to be expended by the Governor, to defray the contingent expenses of the Territory, including the salary of a clerk of the Executive Department; and there shall also be appropriated, annually, a sufficient sum, to be expended by the Secretary of the Territory, and upon an estimate to be made by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, to defray the expenses of the Legislative Assembly, the printing of the laws, and other incidental expenses; and the Governor and Secretary of the Territory shall, in the disbursement of all moneys intrusted to them, be governed solely by the instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, and shall, semi-annually, account to the said Secretary for the manner in which the aforesaid moneys shall have been expended; and no expenditure shall be made by said Legislative Assembly for objects not specially authorized by the acts of Congress, making the appropriations, nor beyond the sums thus appropriated for such objects.

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Nebraska shall hold its first session at such time and place in said Territory as the Governor thereof shall appoint and direct; and at said first session, or as soon thereafter as they shall deem expedient, the Governor and Legislative Assembly shall proceed to locate and establish the seat of government for said Territory at such place as they may deem eligible; which place, however, shall thereafter be subject to be changed by the said Governor and Legislative Assembly.

SEC. 14. And be it further enacted, That a delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States, to serve for the term of two years, who shall be a citizen of the United States, may be elected by the voters qualified to elect members of the Legislative Assembly, who shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as are exercised and enjoyed by the delegates from the several other Territories of the United States to the said House of Representatives, but the delegate first elected shall hold his seat only during the term of the Congress to which he shall be elected. The first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the Governor shall appoint and direct; and at all subsequent elections the times, places, and manner of holding the elections, shall be prescribed by law. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected; and a certificate thereof shall be given accordingly. That the Constitution, and all Laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slaves in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of sixth March, eighteen hundred and twenty, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery.

SEC. 15. And Be it further enacted, That there shall hereafter be appropriated, as has been customary for the Territorial governments, sufficient amount, to be expended under the direction of the said Governor of the Territory of Nebraska, not exceeding the sums heretofore appropriated for similar objects, for the erection of suitable public buildings at the seat of government, and for the purchase of a library, to be kept at the seat of government for the use of the Governor, Legislative Assembly, Judges of the Supreme Court, Secretary, Marshal, and Attorney of said Territory, and such other persons, and under such regulations as shall be prescribed by law.

SEC. 16. And be it further enacted, That when the lands in the said Territory shall be surveyed under the direction of the government of the United States, preparatory to bringing the same into market, section; numbered sixteen and thirty-six in each township in said Territory shall be, and the same are hereby, reserved for the purpose of being applied to schools in said Territory, and in the States and Territories hereafter to be erected out of the same.

SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That, until otherwise provided by law, the Governor of said Territory may define the Judicial Districts of said Territory, and assign the judges who may be appointed for said Territory to the several districts; and also appoint the times and places for holding courts in the several counties or subdivisions in each of said Judicial Districts by proclamation, to be issued by him; but the Legislative Assembly, at their first or any subsequent session, may organize, alter, or modify such Judicial Districts, and assign the judges, and alter the times and places of holding the courts, as to them shall seem proper and convenient.

SEC. 18. And be it further enacted, That all officers to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for the Territory of Nebraska, who, by virtue of the provisions of any law now existing, or which may be enacted during the present Congress, are required to give security for moneys that may be intrusted with them for disbursement, shall give such security, at such time and place, and in such manner, as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.

SEC. 19. And be it further enacted, That al1 that part of the Territory of the United States included within the following limits, except such portions thereof as are hereinafter expressly exempted from the operations of this act, to wit, beginning at a point on the western boundary of the State of Missouri, where the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude crosses the same; thence west on said parallel to the eastern boundary of New Mexico; thence north on said boundary to latitude thirty-eight; thence following said boundary westward to the east boundary of the Territory of Utah, on the summit of the Rocky Mountains; thence northward on said summit to the fortieth parallel of latitude, thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the State of Missouri; thence south with the western boundary of said State to the place of beginning, be, and the same is hereby, created into a temporary government by the name of the Territory of Kansas; and when admitted as a State or States, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission: Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to inhibit the government of the United States from dividing said Territory into two or more Territories, in such manner and at such times as Congress shall deem convenient and proper, or from attaching any portion of said Territory to any other State or Territory of the United States: Provided further, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining to the Indians in said Territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or to include any territory which, by treaty with any Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or Territory; but all such territory shall be excepted out of the boundaries, and constitute no part of the Territory of Kansas, until said tribe shall signify their assent to the President of the United States to be included within the said Territory of Kansas, or to affect the authority of the government of the United States to make any regulation respecting such Indians, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to the government to make if this act had never passed.

SEC. 20. And be it further enacted, That the executive power and chin authority in and over said Territory of Kansas shall be vested in a Governor, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States. The Governor shall reside within said Territory, and shall be commander-in-chief of the militia thereof. He may grant pardons and respites for offences against the laws of said Territory, and reprieves for offences against the laws of the United States, until the decision of the President can be made known thereon; he shall commission all officers who shall be appointed to office under the laws of the said Territory, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

SEC. 21. And be it further enacted, That there shall be a Secretary of said Territory, who shall reside therein, and hold his office for five years, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States; he shall record and preserve all the laws and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly hereinafter constituted, and all the acts and proceedings of the Governor in his Executive Department; he shall transmit one copy of the laws and journals of the Legislative Assembly within thirty days after the end of each session, and one copy of the executive proceedings and official correspondence semi-annually, on the first days of January and July in each year, to the President of the United States, and two copies of the laws to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to be deposited in the libraries of Congress; and, in case of the death, removal, resignation, or absence of the Governor from the Territory, the Secretary shall be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to execute and perform all the powers and duties of the Governor during such vacancy or absence, or until another Governor shall be duly appointed and qualified to fill such vacancy.

SEC. 22. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power and authority of said Territory shall be vested in the Governor and a Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly shall consist of a Council and House of Representatives. The Council shall consist of thirteen members, having the qualifications of voters, as hereinafter prescribed, whose term of service shall continue two years. The House of Representatives shall, at its first session, consist of twenty-six members possessing the same qualifications as prescribed for members of the Council, and whose term of service shall continue one year. The number of representatives may be increased by the Legislative Assembly, from time to time, in proportion to the increase of qualified voters: Provided, That the whole number shall never exceed thirty-nine. An apportionment shall be made, as nearly equal as practicable, among the several counties or districts, for the election of the Council and Representatives, giving to each section of the Territory representation in the ratio of its qualified voters as nearly as may be. And the members of the Council and of the House of Representatives shall reside in, and be inhabitants of, the district or county, or counties, for which they may be elected, respectively. Previous to the first election, the Governor shall cause a census, or enumeration of the inhabitants and qualified voters of the several counties and districts of the Territory, to be taken by such persons and in such mode as the Governor shall designate and appoint; and the persons so appointed shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor. And the first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, both as to the persons who shall superintend such election and the returns thereof, as the Governor shall appoint and direct; and he shall at the same time declare the number of members of the Council and House of Representatives to which each of the counties or districts shall be entitled under this act. The persons having the highest number of legal votes in each of said Council Districts for members of the Council, shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected to the Council; and the persons having the highest number of legal votes for the House of Representatives, shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected members of said house: Provided, That in case two or more persons voted for shall have an equal number of votes, and in case of a vacancy shall otherwise occur in either branch of the Legislative Assembly, the Governor shall order a new election; and the persons thus elected to the Legislative Assembly shall meet at such place and on such day as the Governor shall appoint; but thereafter, the time, place, and manner of holding and conducting all elections by the people, and the apportioning the representation in the several counties or districts to the Council and House of Representatives, according to the number of qualified t voters, shall be prescribed by law, as well as the day of the commencement of the regular sessions of the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That no session in any one year shall exceed the term of forty days, except the first session, which may continue sixty days.

SEC. 23. And be it further enacted, That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall be an actual resident of said Territory, and shall possess the qualifications hereinafter prescribed, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory; but the qualifications of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those who shall have declared, on oath, their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act: And, provided further, That no officer, soldier, seaman, or marine, or other person in the army or navy of the United States, or attached to troops in the service of the United States, shall be allowed to vote or hold office in said Territory by reason of being on service therein.

SEC. 24. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposa1 of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other properly of residents. Every bill which shall have passed the Council and House of Representatives of the said Territory shall, before it become a law, be presented to the Governor of the Territory; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it with his objections to the house in which it originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which, it shall likewise be reconsidered, and, if approved by two thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, to be entered on the journal of each house, respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within three days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Assembly, by adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

SEC. 25. And be it further enacted, That all township, district, and; county officers, not herein otherwise provided for, shall be appointed or elected as the case may be, in such manner as shall be provided by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Kansas. The Governor shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council, appoint all officers not herein otherwise provided for; and, in the first instance, the Governor alone may appoint all said officers, who shall hold their offices until the end of the first session of the Legislative Assembly; and shall lay off the necessary districts for members of the Council and House of Representatives, and all other officers.

SEC. 26. And be it further enacted, That no member of the Legislative Assembly shall hold, or be appointed to, any office which shall have been created, or the salary or emoluments of which shall have been increased, while he was a member, during the term for which he was elected, and for one year after the expiration of such term; but this restriction shall not be applicable to members of the first Legislative Assembly; and no person holding a commission or appointment under the United States, except postmasters, shall be a member of the Legislative Assembly, or shall hold any office under the government of said Territory.

SEC. 27. And be it further enacted, That the judicial power of said Territory shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, and in justices of the peace. The Supreme Court shall Consist of chief justice and two associate justices, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, and who shall hold a term at the seat of government of said Territory annually; and they shall hold their offices during the period of four years, and until their successors shall be appointed and qualified. The said Territory shall be divided into three judicial districts, and a district court shall be held in each of said districts by one of the justices of the Supreme Court, at such times and places as may be prescribed by law; and the said judges shall, after their appointments, respectively, reside in the districts which shall be assigned them. The jurisdiction of the several courts herein provided for, both appellate and original, and that of the probate courts and of justices of the peace, shall be as limited by law: Provided, That justices of the peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy when the title or boundaries of land may be in dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundred dollars; and the said supreme and district courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common law jurisdiction. Said District Court, or the judge thereof, shall appoint its clerk, who shall also be the register in chancery, and shall keep his office at the place where the court may be held. Writs of error, bills of exception, and appeals shall be allowed in all cases from the final decisions of said district courts to the Supreme Court, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law; but in no case removed to the Supreme Court shall trial by jury be allowed in said court. The Supreme Court, or the justices thereof, shall appoint its own clerk, and every clerk shall hold his office at the pleasure of the court for which he shall have been appointed. Writs of error, and appeals from the final decisions of said supreme court, shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States, where the value of the property, or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars; except only that in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writ of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by said supreme court, without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except also that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, from the decision of the said supreme court created by this act, or of any judge thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus, involving the question of personal freedom: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to or affect the provisions of the ” act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,” approved February twelfth, – seventeen hundred and ninety-three, and the ” act to amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act,” approved September eighteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty; and each of the said district courts shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States as is vested in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States; and the said supreme and district courts of the said Territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same are granted by the judges of the United States in the District of Columbia; and the first six days of every term of said courts, or so much thereof as may be necessary, shall be appropriated to the trial of causes arising under the said Constitution and laws, and writs of error and appeal in all such cases shall-be made to the Supreme Court of said Territory, the same as in other cases. The said clerk shall receive the same fees in all such cases, which the clerks of the district courts of Utah Territory now receive for similar services.

SEC. 28. And be it further enacted, That the provisions of the act entitled ” An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from, the service of their masters,” approved February twelfth, seventeen hundred and ninety-three, and the provisions of the act entitled “An act to amend, and supplementary to, the aforesaid act,” approved September eighteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty, be, and the same are hereby, declared to extend to and be in full force within the limits of the said Territory of Kansas.

SEC. 29. And be it further enacted, That there shall be appointed an attorney for said Territory, who shall continue in office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall receive the same fees and salary as the Attorney of the United States for the present Territory of Utah. There shall also be a marshal for the Territory appointed, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall execute all processes issuing from the said courts where exercising their jurisdiction as Circuit and District Courts of the United States; he shall perform the duties, be subject to the same regulations and penalties, and be entitled to the same fees, as the Marshal of the District Court of the United States for the present Territory of Utah, and shall, in addition, be paid two hundred dollars annually as a compensation for extra services.

SEC. 30. And be it further enacted, That the Governor, Secretary, Chief Justice, and Associate Justices, Attorney, and Marshal, shall be nominated, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed by the President of the United States. The Governor and Secretary to be appointed as aforesaid shall, before they act as such, respectively take an oath or affirmation before the district judge or some justice of the peace in the limits of said Territory, duly authorized to administer oaths and affirmations by the laws now in force therein, or before the Chief Justice or some Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices, which said oaths, when so taken, shall be certified by the person by whom the same shall have been taken; and such certificates shall be received and recorded by the said secretary among the executive proceedings; and the Chief Justice and Associate Justices, and all other civil officers in said Territory, before they act as such, shall take a like oath or affirmation before the said Governor or Secretary, or some Judge or Justice of the Peace of the Territory who may be duly commissioned and qualified, which said oath or affirmation shall be certified and transmitted by the person taking the same to the Secretary, to be by him recorded as aforesaid; and, afterwards, the like oath or affirmation shall be taken, certified, and recorded, in such manner and form as may be prescribed by law. The Governor shall receive an annual salary of two thousand five hundred dollars. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices shall receive as an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The said salaries shall be paid quarter-yearly, from the dates of the respective appointments, at the Treasury of the United States; but no such payment shall be made until said officers shall have entered upon the duties of their respective appointments. The members of the Legislative Assembly shall be entitled to receive three dollars each per day during their attendance at the sessions thereof, and three dollars each for every twenty miles’ travel in going to and returning from the said sessions, estimated according to the nearest usually travelled route; and an additional allowance of three dollars shall be paid to the presiding officer of each house for each day he shall so preside. And a chief clerk, one assistant clerk, a sergeant at-arms, and door-keeper, may be chosen for each house; and the chief clerk shall receive four dollars per day, and the said other officers three dollars per day, during the session of the Legislative Assembly; but no to other officers shall be paid by the United States: Provided, That there shall be but one session of the Legislature annually, unless, on an extraordinary occasion, the Governor shall think proper to call the Legislature together. There shall be appropriated, annually, the usual sum, to be expended by the Governor, to defray the contingent expenses of the Territory, including the salary of a clerk of the Executive Department and there shall also be appropriated, annually, a sufficient sum, to be expended by the Secretary of the Territory, and upon an estimate to be made by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, to defray the expenses of the Legislative Assembly, the printing of the laws, and other incidental expenses; and the Governor and Secretary of the Territory shall, in the disbursement of all moneys intrusted to them, be governed solely by the instructions of the secretary of the Treasury of the United States, and shall, semi-annually, account to the said secretary for lit the manner in which the aforesaid moneys shall have been expended; and no expenditure shall be made by said Legislative Assembly for objects not specially authorized by the acts of Congress making the appropriations, nor beyond the sums thus appropriated for such objects.

SEC. 31. And be it further enacted, That the seat of government of said Territory is hereby located temporarily at Fort Leavenworth; and that such portions of the public buildings as may not be actually used and needed for military purposes, may be occupied and used, under the direction of the Governor and Legislative Assembly, for such public purposes as may be required under the provisions of this act.

SEC. 32. And be it further enacted, That a delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States, to serve for the term of two years, who shall be a citizen of the United States, may be elected by the voters qualified to elect members of the Legislative Assembly, who shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as are exercised and enjoyed by the delegates from the several other Territories of the United States to the said House of Representatives, but the delegate first elected shall hold his seat only during the term of the Congress to which he shall be elected. The first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the Governor shall appoint and direct; and at all subsequent elections, the times, places, and manner of holding the elections shall be prescribed by law. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected, and a certificate thereof shall be given accordingly. That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of sixth of March, eighteen hundred and twenty, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery.

SEC. 33. And be it further enacted; That there shall hereafter be appropriated, as has been customary for the territorial governments, a sufficient amount, to be expended under the direction of the said Governor of the Territory of Kansas, not exceeding the sums heretofore appropriated for similar objects, for the erection of suitable public buildings at the seat of government, and for the purchase of a library, to be kept at the seat of government for the use of the Governor, Legislative Assembly, Judges of the Supreme Court, Secretary, Marshal, and Attorney of said Territory, and such other persons, and under such regulations, as shall be prescribed by law.

SEC. 34. And be it further enacted, That when the lands in the said Territory shall be surveyed under the direction of the government of the United States, preparatory to bringing the same into market, sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in each township in said Territory shall be, and the same are hereby, reserved for the purpose of being applied to schools in said Territory, and in the States and Territories hereafter to be erected out of the same.

SEC. 35. And be it further enacted, That, until otherwise provided by law, the Governor of said Territory may define the Judicial Districts of said Territory, and assign the judges who may be appointed for said Territory to the several districts; and also appoint the times and places for holding courts in the several counties or subdivisions in each of said judicial districts by proclamation, to be issued by him; but the Legislative Assembly, at their first or any subsequent session, may organize, alter, or modify such judicial districts, and assign the judges, and alter the times and places of holding the courts as to them shall seem proper and convenient.

SEC. 36. And be it further enacted, That all officers to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for the Territory of Kansas, who, by virtue of the provisions of any law now existing, or which may be enacted during the present Congress, are required to give security for moneys that may be intrusted with them for disbursement, shall give such security, at such time and place, and in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.

SEC. 37. And be it further enacted, That all treaties, laws, and other, engagements made by the government of the United States with the Indian tribes inhabiting the territories embraced within this act, shall be faithfully and rigidly observed, notwithstanding any thing contained in this act; and that the existing agencies and superintendencies of said Indians be continued with the same powers and duties which are now prescribed by law, except that the President of the United States may, at his discretion, change the location of the office of superintendent.

Approved, May 30, 1854.

Washington State Bill would Permit Businesses to Deny Gays

Introduction

Recently, a group of Republican lawmakers in Washington State introduced a bill that seeks to allow businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals under the guise of religious freedom. The bill was introduced shortly after a local florist was sued for denying service to a gay couple. This bill has sparked controversy and pushback from civil rights advocates.

Background on Anti-Discrimination Laws

Washington State currently has strong anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. These laws were put in place to protect LGBTQ+ individuals and ensure equal access to employment, housing, and public accommodations. However, some lawmakers are now seeking to undermine these laws.

Bill Seeking Exemption for Businesses

The newly introduced bill seeks to create an exemption to Washington State’s anti-discrimination laws for businesses that operate based on religious beliefs. This would allow businesses to legally discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals, specifically in the context of wedding services. This bill would grant businesses free reign to deny services to same-sex couples without facing legal repercussions.

Implications for LGBTQ+ Community

If passed, this bill would have harmful consequences for the LGBTQ+ community, particularly same-sex couples seeking wedding services. It would set a dangerous precedent that discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals is acceptable if rooted in religious beliefs. Many fear that this would lead to a surge in discrimination and hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community.

Opposition and Advocacy Efforts

Civil rights advocates have spoken out against this bill, arguing that it goes against the values of equality and non-discrimination. Many are calling on lawmakers to reject this bill and uphold anti-discrimination laws. Advocacy efforts are also underway to raise awareness about the harmful implications of such a bill and to fight for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.

Conclusion

The proposed bill seeking an exemption to anti-discrimination laws in Washington State would have devastating consequences for the LGBTQ+ community. This bill would allow businesses to deny service to same-sex couples based on religious beliefs, setting a dangerous precedent for discrimination. It is crucial that lawmakers and advocates continue to speak out against this bill and defend the rights of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

A number of Republican lawmakers filed a bill today seeking an exemption to the state’s anti-discrimination statutes just weeks after legal action was initiated against a local florist who denied service to a homosexual couple for their upcoming wedding.

The piece of legislation introduced by Republican Senator Sharon Brown would allow local businesses the right to deny goods or services if they felt doing so went against their religious beliefs, their philosophical beliefs, or sincere matters of conscience.

This measure would not apply to the denial of goods or services to individuals who are deemed as part of a protected class under federal law—meaning the goods or services cannot be denied based on the customer’s religion, disability or race.

Brown claims that the measure seeks to protect people or religious bodies from legal persecution. “There is a glaring lack of protection for religion in our state’s laws,” said Brown.

Moreover signing on to the bill were Senators Janea Holmquist, Mike Hewitt, Don Benton, Jim Honeyford, Mike Padden, John Smith, John Braun, Linda Evans and Ann Rivers.

The piece of legislation has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing nor has it been placed in front of a committee. The bill is not likely to encounter such measures before the regular legislative concludes this Sunday. That said, if a special session is called for as expected, the bill could be heard during this juncture.

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union in our nation’s capital filed a lawsuit in response to a March incident in which Barronelle Stutzman refused to provide service for Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll’s wedding, despite the two men being longtime customers of her flower shop. The shop, which is in Brown’s district, was the subject of a consumer protection lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Ferguson delivered a letter last month asking the florist to comply with the law, but said Stutzman responded by saying she would refute any state action to enforce the statute.

While Washington State voters legalized gay marriage in November of 2012, protections against discriminations based on sexual orientation were previously codified. Under state law, it is illegal for any business to refuse to sell goods or execute services to any individual because of their sexual orientation.

1...345 6 Page 4 of 6