Introduction

Proposed changes to a parental leave program used by hundreds of attorneys in Ontario may leave pregnant attorneys with limited options for continuing their legal practice. The changes are being proposed as a cost-saving measure by the Ontario Law Society and have caused concern among many lawyers who rely on the program. Here’s what you need to know about the issue.

Background

The Law Society of Ontario introduced a parental leave assistance program for lawyers in 2017. The program, which provides financial assistance to lawyers going on parental leave, has been used by hundreds of attorneys, particularly women, to help them maintain their legal practice while caring for a new child. The proposed changes would see the funding for the program cut significantly, leaving many lawyers without the support they need.

Impact on Women Lawyers

Critics of the proposed changes argue that they will disproportionately impact women lawyers, who are more likely to take parental leave than their male counterparts. They assert that the changes will make it difficult for women to maintain their legal practice and return to work after having a child. Lawyers who have relied on the program in the past are concerned about how they will continue to practice law without the support provided by the program.

Cost-Saving Measures

The Law Society of Ontario has proposed the changes as a cost-saving measure to address a projected budget shortfall. The organization has stated that it will explore other options to support lawyers on parental leave, but critics argue that the proposed cuts will have a significant impact on the legal profession, particularly for women lawyers.

Call for Action

As lawyers and advocates voice their concerns about the proposed changes, the Law Society of Ontario is expected to hold a debate on the issue this week. Lawyers are calling for the organization to reconsider the changes and to maintain the support provided by the parental leave program. They argue that the changes will not only have a negative impact on individual lawyers but will also harm the legal profession as a whole.

Conclusion

The proposed changes to the parental leave assistance program in Ontario have caused concern among lawyers, particularly women, who rely on the support provided by the program. Critics argue that the changes will limit the options available to lawyers on parental leave and will have a negative impact on the legal profession. As the Law Society of Ontario debates the proposed changes, many are calling for the organization to maintain the support provided by the program and to explore other options to address budget concerns.

A cut to a parental leave program that hundreds of attorneys—most of them women—have depended on for three years may leave some pregnant attorneys without options for continuing their legal practice.  The changes, proposed as a cost savings measure by the Ontario Law Society, will be debated later this week.

The Ontario Law Society licenses attorneys and provides services to attorneys in the Canadian province of Ontario the same way that state bar associations do in the United States.  Three years ago, it began a pilot program to give parental leave to new parents who were trying to juggle their parental responsibilities with their professional ones.

The program, which cost about half a million dollars per year, was designed to supplement the income of attorneys taking parental leave as solo practitioners or while working for small firms.  Larger firms often have ad hoc maternity leave policies or relatively new policies that allow attorneys to continue being paid for several months after giving birth.  However, smaller firms generally cannot afford to give this kind of maternity benefit, and solo practitioners may lack the funds to simply not take clients for a few months while they recover from labor.

The province of Ontario does have special benefits that can pay up to $450 per week during parental leave, this is often not enough for attorneys to continue to pay office rents.  If the $750 a week program through the Ontario Law Society is discontinued, the unemployment insurance $450 per week maximum may be the best that many solo practitioners and small firm attorneys can do.

Ontario’s law society chose to implement the parental leave program after noticing that while women made up 50 percent of the graduating class of Ontario’s law schools, after 8 years in the profession they were only 35 percent.  Women at small firms, according to the law society, are likely to stop working when they are unable to go back to work for several months after giving birth, because they are unable to continue billing clients and lack family friendly flexibility.

Currently, people who are deriving benefits from the policy typically take about 12 weeks total of paid leave.  While men are allowed to receive parental leave benefits, women have been far more likely to use the program and constitute the vast majority of its recipients to date.

In order to use the program, attorneys must demonstrate that they work at a firm with five lawyers or fewer, that they are becoming a birth or adoptive parent, and that they are unable to obtain any other type of paid leave.  They must also stop doing any legal work during the time that they are receiving the parental leave benefit, in order to prevent attorneys from simply having the benefit paid out in addition to salary for several weeks.

Sources: lsuc.on.ca, theglobeandmail.com

KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT TEXT

What was the the Kansas-Nebraska Act ?

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a bill, originally proposed in 1854 by Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas that split the American territories west of Missouri into two factions, the Nebraska territory and the Kansas territory.  In the Kansas-Nebraska Act the two territories were to decide for themselves, through poplar sovereignty whether to permit slavery or not.  

The territory of Kansas comprised the land west of the Missouri border to the summit of the Rocky Mountains in what are now the States of Kansas and most of Colorado.  The territory of Nebraska consisted of the area north of Kansas to the Canadian border and west to the great divide. 

Background

Since the 1840’s the idea of a transcontinental railroad were becoming more and more prosperous to the United States.  Senator Stephen Douglas, partly to aid his constituents in Illinois and partly to garner support for a presidential run, wished to have the transcontinental railroad travel through Illinois; having its hub in Chicago. 

In order to make this happen the transcontinental railroad would have to take a northern route, putting it through, what was then, the Nebraska Territory.  His proposal was to organize the territory of Nebraska to bring it under civil control and populate the area which was, at this point in time, frontier land subject to attacks by Native Americans.  In Douglas’s view, manifest destiny required the removal of those members of the population who were deemed to be deviant and violent, meaning Native Americans.  The way to accomplish this goal was to create an incentive for individuals to establish communities and drive out the former inhabitants.

The proposal did not fare well among the southern population.  The southern States argued that The Missouri Compromise of 1820 outlawed slavery above the 36th latitude and therefore the Nebraska Territory would become a free territory.  

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 came about over the admission of Maine and Missouri as States in the Union.  After debate in Congress it was decided that Maine would be admitted as a Free State and Missouri a slave State.  In addition it was ruled that the slavery issue in all other territories west of Missouri would be decided on a geographic level.  All those lands north of the 36th parallel would be Free States and that south of that line would be slaves States.  The Missouri Compromise was amended in 1850 with the annexation of Texas.  The revised version, The Missouri Compromise of 1850 would make California a free State, Texas a slave State and the slaver issue in Utah and New Mexico territories would be decided by popular sovereignty.  

For fear that the territories would eventually become States and ultimately create an imbalance in Congress over the slavery issue, the south argued against the Act.  In order to quell southern dissent, and garner support for the bill, Douglas proposed a compromise.  

The compromise entailed the division of the Nebraska Territory into two distinct territories, the Nebraska Territory and the Kansas Territory.  In both territories the settlers were to vote on whether they would allow slavery in the territory.  Although it was never repealed, the Act ignored parameters of The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and helped bring the Civil War closer than ever.

Results of the Kansas-Nebraska Act

Immediate Results

Upon the Kansas-Nebraska Act’s enactment in May of 1854 it was already highly controversial and condemned by the Northern States.  It was considered a complete affront to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and was considered a betrayal by their own Senator.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act was also condemned by northerners because there was never a question as to whether the Nebraska Territory, before the Kansas-Nebraska Act, would become a free or slave territory.  Most of the territory was situated so far north that even the need for slaves was lacking.  Aside from the part of the territory that now comprises Nebraska and Kansas, there was little thought that the area would become a highly intense agricultural area demanding the use of slave labor.

The response to the Kansas-Nebraska act was nothing more than a rush to settle the Kansas Territory.  Where the decision on slavery was going to come to a popular vote, it was important for both the North and the South to settle the territory as much as possible to insure favorable results.  

First election in Kansas

In a rush to settle the Kansas Territory, northerners from New England and other anti-slavery areas began to rush into the territory to settle the region.  A group of anti-slavery activists estimated at 1200 individuals entered Kansas in July of 1854 and established the city of Lawrence which was to be the focal point of the anti-slavery movement in Kansas.  

Upon hearing of the influx of up to 20,000 northern ant-slavery supporters into Kansas a surge of individuals from the southern States began to converge on the territory.  In November of 1854 thousands of southerners, mostly from the Missouri border just to the east, converged on Kansas, armed with firearms in an attempt to vote on slavery’s behalf.  This resulted in almost half of the votes that were cast in the territorial election of 1854 being cast by those who were actual resident.  The vote resulted in pro-slavery advocates having won the election.  However, because of the blatant and obvious voter fraud associated with the election, the results were nullified and another election was held.

A second election was held in March of 1855; again pro slavery forces from Missouri and other southern states infiltrated the territory.  Some estimates have stated that between 3000 to 6000 individuals stormed the Kansas Territory to vote for the pro-slavery agenda.  The pro-slavery vote won the second election as well and the territory began to establish itself as pro-slavery.

Upon the victory of the pro-slavery faction in the election of 1855 the First Kansas Territorial Legislature enacted a number of laws, commonly known as the bogus laws.  These laws were highly discriminatory towards anti-slavery persons living within the Kansas Territory.  

The “bogus laws”, as they were called because northerners felt that they had; and rightly so, stolen the election, adopted the statutes of Missouri as the law in Kansas.  The Kansas Territorial Legislature also adopted what are known as the “black laws.” The black laws were enacted in order to “punish offenses against slave property.” The “offenses” included: aiding or assisting decoying a slave punishable, by death; raising or insurrection among slaves, punishable by death; printing or publishing any document calculated to produce “dangerous disaffection” among slaves, punishable by 5 years of hard labor; and even speaking or writing about the condemnation of slavery, punishable by 2 years of hard labor.

Bleeding Kansas

The result of the establishment of the Kansas Territory as a pro-slavery territory combined with the enactment of the “bogus laws” resulted in a powder keg of violence.  In May of 1856 a group of 800 men attacked the pro-slavery capitol of Lawrence, Kansas.  The mob burned buildings, destroyed the newspaper offices and In May 1856, an 800-man “posse” made up of border ruffians from Missouri sacked Lawrence, wrecking the newspaper offices and the Governor’s residence.  In response the abolitionist, John Brown; who would be immortalized in the Harpers Ferry massacre, and four of his sons abducted five pro-slavery settlers and murdered them within the view of their families.  Overall, the ongoing skirmishes associated with “bleeding Kansas” resulted in the deaths of 200 individuals.  

In Congress there was the same amount of civility.  The Kansas problem had caused anger between the representatives of both sides and after one speech given by Senator Charles Sumner, where he ridiculed southern congressmen of cavorting with “the harlot, slavery”, was bludgeoned with a cane by Congressman Preston Brooks.

Lincoln Douglas Debates of 1858

In the infamous Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858, which propelled Lincoln to the presidency, the issue of slavery was the main topic at hand.  Lincoln used the example of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the resulting “bleeding Kansas” as stepping stone to stress the point about the spread of slavery.  Where Lincoln did not condemn slavery, at least not vocally at this point, he did take not to mention, with “bleeding Kansas” as an example, that the idea of slavery is so strong in the ideals of those who want it that they will go to far reaches to insure it dominion.  Lincoln noted that slavery must be checked because otherwise it would encompass the entire country.

Kansas as a Free State

Due to the overwhelming violence and obvious voter fraud associated with the Kansas-Nebraska Act the decision was finally made to admit Kansas as Free State in the Union.  The pro-slavery faction of Congress condemned the decision claiming, among other things, that it went against the elections that were held to decide the matter.  Congress stalled and Kansas was not admitted to the Union until 1861 when the southern States began to secede from the Union.

To read the Kansas-Nebraska Act please go to https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=28&page=transcript

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854: A Controversial Piece of Legislation

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was a piece of legislation that allowed for the creation of two new territories, Kansas and Nebraska, by dividing the land of the Louisiana Purchase into two parts. While this may have seemed like a simple and straightforward action, it ended up being one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in American history. In this article, we will take a closer look at the Kansas-Nebraska Act and its impact on American history.

The Need for New Territories

At the time, the United States was expanding westward. The Louisiana Purchase, made in 1803, had vastly expanded America’s territory, but as more and more people moved west, it became clear that new territories were needed. This need was especially urgent after the discovery of gold in California in 1848, which led to a rush of settlers heading west in search of riches.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was introduced by Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois in January 1854. Douglas was a strong advocate of popular sovereignty, the idea that the settlers of a new territory should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow slavery within their borders. The act proposed that the issue of slavery in the new territories be decided by popular sovereignty.

The act was not without controversy. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had prohibited slavery in any new territories north of latitude 36°30′, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act would repeal this compromise. This was seen as a betrayal by many in the North, who felt that their interests were being ignored in favor of the interests of the South.

Bleeding Kansas

The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act led to a rush of settlers heading west to stake their claim to the new territory. However, things quickly turned violent in Kansas, with pro- and anti-slavery settlers clashing in what became known as “Bleeding Kansas.” The violence included raids, arson, and even outright fighting between the two factions.

The impact of the Kansas-Nebraska Act was far-reaching. It helped to further inflame tensions between the North and South over the issue of slavery, ultimately leading to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. The act also effectively destroyed the Democratic Party, which had been the dominant political force in the country up to that point.

Conclusion

While the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 may have seemed like a simple piece of legislation at the time, its impact on American history cannot be overstated. It helped to bring the issue of slavery to the forefront of national politics, ultimately leading to the outbreak of the Civil War. It is a reminder of the power of legislation and how even seemingly small actions can have far-reaching consequences.

Introduction

The Church of England, the largest church in England, recently voted on a measure that would allow women to become bishops. Despite the majority being in support of the measure, it ultimately failed due to voting rules. Here’s what you need to know about the situation.

Background

The issue of female bishops has been a point of contention in the Church of England for decades. In 1994, the church began allowing women to be ordained as priests. However, the issue of women in leadership roles has remained a subject of intense debate.

The Vote

In a widely anticipated vote, the Church of England’s General Synod voted on the measure to allow women to become bishops. While a solid majority, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, voted in favor of the measure, it ultimately failed due to voting rules requiring a two-thirds majority from three different voting groups: bishops, clergy, and laity.

Reactions

Many supporters of the measure were disappointed by the outcome, calling it a missed opportunity for progress. Some argue that the Church of England risks becoming increasingly out of touch with modern attitudes and values. Others, however, maintain that the vote was not about agreeing or disagreeing with women bishops, but rather about the proper process for making such a fundamental change to the church’s structure.

What’s Next

Many within the church are calling for a reassessment of the voting rules, arguing that the two-thirds majority requirement is too high. Some are also urging the church to have a broader conversation about the role of women in the church and the importance of gender equality.

Conclusion

The failure of the measure to allow women to become bishops in the Church of England highlights the ongoing debates about gender roles and gender equality in institutions across the world. Despite the setback, it is clear that the issue will continue to be an important one for the church and for society as a whole, as attitudes and beliefs continue to evolve.

A widely anticipated vote on the status of women in England’s largest church left the status quo intact.  Although a solid majority voted in favor of the measure allowing female bishops to serve the Church of England, the measure failed due to voting rules requiring a two-thirds majority from three different voting groups.

The Church of England, which has been an active force in Britain since it was first created by King Henry VIII in the 16th century, had few roles for women in its first several centuries.  While women were permitted to be nuns, they could not join the clergy and were not allowed into any church leadership positions. The first women priests were allowed into the church in 1992.

Anglican churches, which are churches outside of England that descended from the Church of England, have been substantially more progressive about allowing women into their clergy and church leadership positions.  Canadian, American, and Australian Anglican churches all allow for female bishops, and women have become increasingly common in these positions since first being allowed.

In order for the vote for female bishops to have passed, three different groups would have to approve the measure by a two-thirds vote—the laity (lay, or regular, people), the clergy (priests), and the bishop.  While nearly 90 percent of the bishops and over 70 percent of the clergy voted in favor of allowing female bishops, the shortfall occurred in the laity.  Just four more votes in favor of the measure from the lay voters would have changed the outcome of the election.

The vote was so close that some in England wondered if there could be a re-casting of ballots in the near future to see if any of the lay members might have changed their minds.  However, church rules allow for these measures to be voted on only once every five years, so the next opportunity for allowing women to become bishops won’t come until late 2017.

Currently, only about two percent of people in the United Kingdom attend church services regularly, and the vote against women bishops has some in the church worried that attendance will now suffer even more.

Since 3 in 4 Britons approved of the measure to allow women bishops in public opinion polling, church leaders are concerned that the vote will make them appear to be out of touch in spite of the fact that bishops and clergy voted overwhelmingly for women.  Both the outgoing and ingoing Archbishops of Canterbury are major proponents of the change, indicating that support within the Church of England for female bishops is strongest at the top.

The proposed new rule would still have allowed for some congregations to request a male bishop in order to oversee their female bishop if they considered themselves to be traditionalists.  This compromise, however, was not enough to placate traditionalist elements among the laity.

While many expected for the female bishops measure to pass in 2012, few doubt that it will pass in 2017.  “This is not an issue that is going to go away,” said the Archbishop of Canterbury after finding out the results of the vote.

Sources: bbc.co.uk, time.com

Virginia May Stop Shackling Pregnant Women in Labor

Shackling in Prison

The use of restraints in prisons has long been a point of controversy, with many arguing that it is cruel and inhumane treatment that can cause long-lasting negative effects on inmates. The situation becomes even more delicate when it comes to pregnant women in labor who are being restrained or shackled.

Current Shackling Practices

Currently, in many prisons and jails, pregnant women are still being subjected to a variety of restraints, even during their labor and delivery. These restraints include leg shackles, waist chains, and handcuffs, which can cause physical discomfort and also potentially be harmful to the health of the mother and child.

A New Rule in Virginia

Recently, Virginia proposed a new rule that would ban the use of restraints on pregnant women during labor and delivery. If this rule is approved, women in Virginia prisons and jails will no longer be shackled during this vulnerable time in their lives. The proposal has been praised by many advocates for women’s rights and the humane treatment of prisoners.

The Debate Around the Issue

The use of restraints on pregnant women has been a point of debate for many years. Supporters of the use of restraints argue that it is a necessary measure to ensure the safety of prison staff and to prevent escapes. However, opponents argue that it is an inhumane and unnecessary practice that can cause serious harm to the mother and child.

The Positive Impact of the New Rule

If Virginia approves the new rule, it will be a significant step forward in the treatment of pregnant women in prisons and jails. It will help to ensure that these women are not subjected to unnecessary and potentially harmful restraints during one of the most vulnerable times in their lives. It will also be a positive step forward in the fight for the humane treatment of prisoners, and in recognizing the unique needs of pregnant women.

Conclusion

The issue of shackling pregnant women in prisons is a serious one, and it is encouraging to see Virginia take steps to address it. If the new rule is approved, it will send a powerful message about the importance of treating prisoners with respect and dignity, and recognizing the unique needs of vulnerable populations. It is a reminder that even small steps can make a significant difference in the quality of life for those who are incarcerated.

Women who are pregnant or delivering a new baby will no longer be shackled or have waist chains applied, if Virginia approves a new set of rules for its prison systems.  Currently, Virginia prisons and jails are using a wide variety of restraints for prisoners that may include leg shackles and waist chains in addition to handcuffs.

While some prisons and jails have used these restraints only for women who are attending doctor’s visits for prenatal care, others have been significantly more severe.  Many women’s rights groups have been outraged by the fact that 33 states still allow women to be shackled even as they are giving birth, in spite of the safety risks this entails.

The new guidelines, if accepted, will require pregnant or birthing women to be unshackled at all times except for when they are being transported from one place to another.  At any time when they are in the hospital giving birth, they would be unrestrained if the guidelines are implemented as they read now.  Only handcuffs would be permitted for restraint of pregnant prisoners at times of transport.

According to opponents of restraints, restrained jail inmates are significantly more likely to miscarry.  Because of the changes to a woman’s balance that occur during pregnancy and the fact that restraints make it more difficult to regain balance, pregnant women are also more likely to suffer from falls when they are restrained.

Even after a woman’s baby has been delivered, leg shackles can actually lead to a significantly higher risk of hemorrhage or blood clots.  The new guidelines have been proposed by Virginia’s Board of Corrections in response to a request for a consistent policy on the shackling of laboring prisoners in the state’s jails.

The Virginia legislature may be voting on a state law that would supercede these rules and would also apply them not only to jails, but also to prisons.  According to the proposed law, additional restraints could be used for a pregnant woman who posed a genuine flight risk.  While this is rare—the vast majority of pregnant women will stay in the hospital even if they are completely unrestrained during labor—if additional restraints were needed, the sheriff’s office or prison official would have to explain why.

Sheriffs in Virginia have so far been opposed to both forms of the new guidelines.  According to the sheriffs, giving information about the shackling of prisoners could potentially compromise their security procedures.

Most pregnant women in Virginia’s jails are serving sentences of less than one year for non-violent offenses.  If the law proposed passes the Virginia legislature and is signed into effect by Virginia’s governor, it will become the 18th state to limit the extent to which pregnant prisoners may be shackled during labor and birth.  Advocates of these laws point to evidence that shows that pregnant women are among the least likely prisoners to be violent toward prison guards or medical professionals.