Hillary Clinton Speaks About Work-Life Balance

Introduction

On March 28, 2014, former Secretary of State and First Lady Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the 15th annual Emily’s List Gala Dinner in Washington, D.C. In her speech, Clinton discussed the importance of work-life balance and policies that support women and families in the workforce.

The Importance of Work-Life Balance

Clinton emphasized the need for work-life balance, noting that it is essential for individuals to have the flexibility they need to balance their personal and professional lives. She cited research showing that work-life balance is associated with better physical and mental health, higher job satisfaction, and more productive work.

Addressing Workplace Challenges

Clinton also addressed the challenges that many women face in the workforce, such as unequal pay, lack of access to child care, and discrimination. She argued that employers need to do more to address these issues and create a more supportive work environment for women and families.

Supporting Family-Friendly Policies

Clinton called for policies and programs that support women and families in the workforce, including paid family and medical leave, affordable child care, and flexible work arrangements. She noted that these policies not only support women, but also benefit families and businesses.

The Role of Government and the Private Sector

Clinton argued that achieving work-life balance and supporting women and families in the workforce requires collaboration between the government and the private sector. She called for policies that promote these values at the national level, as well as initiatives led by businesses and employers to create more family-friendly workplaces.

Conclusion

In her speech on work-life balance, Hillary Clinton spoke to the challenges that many women face in the workforce and the importance of policies and programs that support women and families. She emphasized that work-life balance is essential for physical and mental well-being, job satisfaction, and productivity, and called for collaboration between the government and private sector to achieve these goals.

When Hillary Clinton became pregnant with her daughter Chelsea, she had no idea that one day they would live in the White House. At that time, Hillary was the only female partner working for her law firm—in fact, the first female partner the firm had ever had.

At a recent State Department event to celebrate National Work-Life Balance and Family Month, Hillary talked about her experiences trying to seek out work life balance as a powerful woman working in the legal field.

“Before I had my daughter, it was theoretical, you know?” she said. “After I had my daughter, it was urgent.” Clinton said that her pregnancy alone seemed difficult for her fellow law firm partners to accept in 1980, and that they would look away from her when she walked down the hallway in her third trimester.

No one, Clinton said, even tried to talk to her about the pregnancy or even when she’d be coming back to work. Her firm’s maternity leave policy was decided when, in a post-birth discussion with a partner, she was finally asked when she’d return to work. “Oh, I don’t know, maybe in four months,” she said—and the firm had a four month maternity leave policy after that.

National Work-Life and Family Month was declared for the first time in October of 2003 by Senate Resolution 533, and work-life balance has made some significant strides since Clinton’s law firm partnership. Today, most law firms, as well as other employers, are more clear about their maternity leave policies.

However, the United States remains the only developed nation without mandatory paid maternity leave for employees. The only required leave employers must provide to an employee who has given birth is FMLA leave, which is unpaid and lasts just six weeks. This is in contrast to policies in nations like Canada, Sweden, and Norway, which give months or even years of paid parental leave to both mothers and fathers.

Schedule flexibility is also something that is difficult for most employees to obtain in America. Because United States employers are not required to provide these benefits, many employees experience a great deal of difficulty trying to negotiate work-life balance. Clinton noted in her speech that current research shows a 20 percent increase in employee loyalty at offices that allow more flexibility.

Employers who want to ensure that they’re able to get top employees and keep those employees need to consider implementing flexible programs, and not just for women of childbearing age, according to Clinton. Flexibility may also be useful to employees in other situations—for example, those with aging parents with health problems, or who are having serious illnesses themselves.

The State Department’s response to the challenges of creating a work-life balance for employees was to create a Work-Life division that is responsible for helping employees with important decisions involving their work-life balance. The Work-Life division provides childcare and childcare subsidies for State Department employees, as well as assisting employees with referrals to services that can help them solve personal or professional problems.

Source: State.gov

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.

Last Abortion Clinic In Mississippi May Shut Down

Introduction

Mississippi may soon become the only U.S. state without any abortion clinics. This is due to the state’s most recent abortion restrictions, which are set to be argued in court this week. The restrictions, known as TRAP regulations, have been criticized by many as a thinly veiled attempt to limit women’s access to abortion.

Background on Abortion Regulations in Mississippi

Mississippi is just one of several U.S. states that have sought to regulate abortion providers more strictly in recent years. In many cases, these regulations have been challenged in court by abortion providers and pro-choice advocates who argue that they place an undue burden on women seeking abortion services.

In Mississippi, the state’s most recent abortion regulations require that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This requirement, supporters argue, is necessary to ensure that women who experience complications during the procedure can receive appropriate medical care.

The Last Abortion Clinic in Mississippi

The last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi is the Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The clinic has provided abortion services in the state since 1996 and has been the subject of numerous legal challenges in recent years.

The most recent challenge to the clinic’s existence stems from the state’s TRAP regulations. According to the Mississippi State Department of Health, none of the physicians at the Jackson Women’s Health Organization have admitting privileges at local hospitals, meaning that the clinic would be forced to close if the regulations are enforced.

Impact on Women’s Access to Abortion

If the last abortion clinic in Mississippi is shut down, women in the state who wish to have an abortion will be forced to travel to other states in order to access the procedure. This will likely be particularly difficult for low-income women and those living in rural areas, who may not have the resources or transportation necessary to travel long distances.

In addition to limiting women’s access to abortion services, the TRAP regulations in Mississippi highlight the ongoing debate over abortion rights in the United States. Supporters argue that these regulations are necessary to protect the health of women seeking abortions, while opponents argue that they are a thinly veiled attempt to restrict women’s access to abortion.

Conclusion

The last abortion clinic in Mississippi may soon be forced to close due to the state’s most recent abortion regulations. This would make Mississippi the only U.S. state without any abortion clinics, severely limiting women’s access to abortion services in the state. The ongoing debate over abortion rights and restrictions in the United States highlights the need for continued advocacy and activism in support of women’s reproductive rights.

Mississippi, one of several U.S. states with only one remaining abortion clinic, goes to court this week to argue in favor of its most recent abortion restrictions. If enacted, the restrictions (commonly referred to by supporters as TRAP, or Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) would almost certainly shut down the last abortion clinic in the state, making Mississippi the only U.S. state without any abortion clinics whatsoever.

According to the new state law, all people performing an abortion must be board certified obstetricians and gynecologists. In some other states, nurse practitioners and general practice doctors are allowed to perform abortion procedures, which are generally considered to be safe and very simple surgery in the first trimester.

While the clinic could comply with this regulation, the second part of the law makes compliance all but impossible. The regulations call for all doctors working in abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a hospital near to their clinic.

In Mississippi, as in North Dakota and other states with few clinics left and politically hostile environments, abortion providers prefer flying in from out of state. This allows them to live in an area where residents are less likely to harass them or their families. However, it also prevents them from obtaining admitting privileges.

The continuing restrictions against abortion providers were challenged by the abortion clinic, and a federal court will hear an appeal in the case this week. According to the clinic’s owners, no abortion clinic in the state would be able to meet the onerous new requirements. Because of this, the laws essentially ban first trimester abortions in the state of Mississippi, a state of affairs forbidden by the United States Supreme Court since its decision in Roe v. Wade.

Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers have also been used in several other states. One of the biggest recent cases has involved new Virginia legislation that created new building standards for abortion clinics. None of the state’s ten abortion clinics are likely to be able to meet the standards in time, and many of the standards are not related in any way to patient care or medical outcomes.

The appeals court decision in this case may lead to a Supreme Court case regarding TRAP regulations. It is likely that the Supreme Court will have to draw a line somewhere in order to maintain the precedent on abortion set by previous Supreme Court rulings.

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

Proposed Ontario Leave Cut Leaves Lady Lawyers in Lurch

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

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.

Sexual Harassment Plaintiffs’ Facebook Passwords Handed Over to Defendant

Sexual Harassment Plaintiffs' Facebook Passwords Handed Over to Defendant

Introduction

A recent ruling in a sexual harassment case against the Honeybaked Ham Company has raised concerns among legal experts. The judge ordered the plaintiffs to hand over their social media logins and passwords, as well as access to all text messages, to the defendant for use in trial. Here’s what you need to know about this decision.

Background

The case involves 20 plaintiffs who allege that they were victims of sexual harassment and retaliation while working for the Honeybaked Ham Company. During discovery, the defendant requested access to the plaintiffs’ social media accounts and text messages, arguing that the information could be relevant to the case.

The Ruling

In a surprising decision, the judge ordered the plaintiffs to provide their social media logins and passwords to the defense, along with access to all text messages. The judge noted that social media and text messages could contain relevant evidence and that the plaintiffs had not presented any privacy concerns that outweighed the relevance of the information.

Legal Implications

The decision has raised concerns among legal experts, who worry that it could set a dangerous precedent for privacy rights in future cases. Some argue that social media and text messages are private forms of communication that should be protected from being used in court without a compelling reason. Others argue that this ruling could open the floodgates to defendants seeking access to private information in all types of cases.

Protecting Your Privacy

If you are involved in a legal case, it is important to be aware of the potential for your social media and text messages to be used as evidence. To protect your privacy, consider setting your social media and text message accounts to private and deleting any potentially incriminating messages.

Conclusion

The ruling in the Honeybaked Ham Company case has sparked a debate about the balance between privacy rights and the need for relevant evidence in legal cases. As the use of social media and technology becomes more prevalent, it is important for individuals to be aware of their rights and take steps to protect their privacy.

A judge’s decision in a sexual harassment case against the Honeybaked Ham Company is sending shockwaves through the legal community—and the trial hasn’t even begun yet. The case, which is still in the discovery phase, took an interesting twist this week when a judge ruled that the 20 plaintiffs would be required to give their social media logins and passwords, as well as access to all of their text messages, to the defendant to use during the trial.

Honeybaked Ham was sued in 2011 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after several women working in its Colorado locations claimed that they had been repeatedly sexually harassed by men working in the stores. According to the women, they had been called gender-based epithets that had been offensive to them, and had been repeatedly touched or groped by men in the workplace.

The plaintiffs brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace gender discrimination. They alleged that the conduct of the men working at Honeybaked Ham had constituted both harassment and discrimination, and that a hostile workplace environment had been created by the repeated sexually inappropriate conduct.

However, when the women brought suit, Honeybaked Ham fought back, firing some of the women. When they sued for retaliation as well, Honeybaked Ham began asking for their social media information.

According to attorneys for Honeybaked Ham, the women who sued were alleging discrimination and that they had been damaged emotionally by their termination, but their social media profiles told a different story. One woman wore a shirt in a Facebook picture that used the same gender based epithet that she claimed had offended her when it was used by one of the other Honeybaked Ham employees.

The attorneys for Honeybaked Ham also maintain that several of the plaintiffs were having “sexually amorous communications” with each other, which they suggest may imply collusion among the plaintiff class.

The judge in the case ruled that because the Facebook information could be relevant to damages, it should be looked into. According to the judge, since the information would have been made available in the discovery process if it was on a public “Everything About Me” page, there should be no difference between that and things which may have been posted semi-privately or privately on Facebook.

This case will have significant implications for how people are able to use social media in the future. Attorneys for plaintiffs in sexual harassment lawsuits should make sure that their clients understand the very serious implications of discussing their case on Facebook or via text messages, and how these discussions can have a serious potential impact on their ability to collect damages.

It is very likely that regardless of how the Honeybaked Ham case is decided, an appeal will be forthcoming. The case is yet another example of how social media is changing the face of the law today, and even changing some of the basic questions being asked in legal cases.

Sources: eeoc.gov, westlaw.com

Vote for Women Bishops Fails in England

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

Sexual Harassment Settlement Reached by IHOP Franchise

Introduction

The franchise owner of several IHOP restaurants has agreed to pay a $1 million settlement in a sexual discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit, brought by a class of 22 women, alleged that they had been sexually harassed at one of the franchisee’s restaurants. Here’s what you need to know about the case.

Background

The lawsuit alleged that a female manager at one of the IHOP restaurants owned by the franchisee had sexually harassed multiple female employees. The harassment reportedly included lewd comments, unwanted touching, and requests for sexual favors. The alleged behavior continued despite complaints from the victims.

The Settlement

The franchise owner agreed to a $1 million settlement in the lawsuit, which will be split among the 22 plaintiffs. As part of the settlement, the franchise owner also agreed to implement new policies and procedures to prevent and address sexual harassment in the workplace.

Reaction

The settlement has been hailed as a victory for the victims of sexual harassment and a reminder that such behavior will not be tolerated in the workplace. However, some activists and experts argue that $1 million is not a sufficient deterrent against sexual harassment and that more needs to be done to hold individuals and companies accountable for such behavior.

Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

The settlement underscores the importance of preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. Companies can take steps to prevent such behavior by establishing policies and procedures that promote a safe and respectful work environment. Training employees on sexual harassment prevention and response can also be effective in reducing the incidence of such behavior.

Conclusion

The settlement in the sexual discrimination lawsuit against the IHOP franchise owner provides a measure of justice for the victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. It is important that companies take proactive steps to prevent such behavior and ensure that employees are aware of their rights and that such behavior will not be tolerated. Only then can we create a workplace that is safe and respectful for all.

The franchise owner of several IHOP restaurants located throughout New Mexico has agreed to settle a sexual discrimination lawsuit for the sum of $1 million. The lawsuit alleged that a class of 22 women had been sexually harassed by a manager at one of the IHOP restaurants owned by the franchisee.

The group of women harassed by the manager, Lee Broadnax, ranged in age from women in their teens to those in their twenties. The youngest harassment victim was just sixteen years old at the time the conduct took place.

Broadnax engaged in several different types of harassment with multiple employees. In addition to making frequent attempts to kiss female employees, he also touched women who worked for him on their hips and buttocks. He also exhibited behavior that the women being harassed found disturbing, like staring at women employees and licking his lips.

Sexual harassment was pervasive in the IHOP restaurant where the lawsuit stemmed from, according to the EEOC. Broadnax was also accused of making comments about women’s body parts and stated explicitly that he wanted to take clothes off of one of his employees.

The settlement represents a victory for the 22 women who had been victimized by the manager in the case. Strangely, this is not the first time that IHOP franchise owners have faced similar sexual harassment allegations this year. Earlier in the year, IHOP appealed a lower court ruling that held the company liable for harassment by a manager at another restaurant.

In that case, young girls had also been harassed by a manager, and the women involved had made complaints against their harasser. The attorneys for IHOP in that case maintained that because all employees, including managers, had attended sexual harassment seminars put on by the company, they were not liable for harassment coming from just one employee.

While that argument may have sounded convincing to IHOP, it didn’t convince the judge, who found the restaurant liable for the harassment the employees had experienced. The court held that it was not enough to simply have an employee harassment and discrimination policy, or to train people regarding the policy—in order for a company to escape liability, it must be able to demonstrate that it has actually enforced the policy when a complaint is made.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been pursuing discrimination and harassment cases more aggressively in the last several years, following a slowdown during the Bush administration. In addition to pursuing sexual harassment allegations, gender discrimination and cases involving pregnancy discrimination are also ramping up as the EEOC continues to promote its mission of ending workplace discrimination for Americans.

IHOP has also agreed to include additional training regarding discrimination and harassment as part of its future employment training, and will provide employees with notice of the settlement.

Sources: uscourts.gov, eeoc.gov

1...456 Page 5 of 6