Johnson Controls : A Voluntary Fetal Protection Policy

Another pro-life group is known as the Pro-life Action League. This group holds prayer vigils outside abortion facilities and provides sidewalk counseling to women and/or couples seeking abortions. The goal of this is to provide abortion alternatives, counseling, access to pregnancy resources, etc. This group is also involved in public protests to raise awareness of the injustice of abortion; they participate in marches, pickets, prayer vigils, and also raise awareness by holding large abortion pictures on busy streets to show what the end result of abortion is on an unborn child. They also hold a monthly protest at Planned Parenthood in Aurora, one of the busiest Planned Parenthood clinics, and protest pro-abortion politicians and other public figures that oppose the rights of unborn babies. Some of the other objectives of this group are to confront abortionists, abortion promoters, infiltrate pro-choice group meetings, and provide training to pro-life activists to help them organize effective programs and become successful pro-life leaders. I have discussed four very different groups, half are pro-choice and half are pro-life. While researching groups actively participating in rallying for or against abortion, there were so many with different tactics and resources available for both sides of the abortion debate.

In the news article “Abortion: Every Woman’s Rights” Sharon Smith wrote an article about women’s rights to get abortions prior to the hearing of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey court case, “which threatened to severely restrict women access to abortion” (Smith). Women wanted reproductive control over their lives and felt that they were not equal to men no matter what advances they got at work and how high their level of education was. The women’s right movement wanted women to have the choice of abortion for all women, the rich and the poor. In the US, thirty- seven states did not provide

Sterilization legislature was enacted on the state level with the goal of physically preventing the procreation of individuals deemed to be unfit, mainly handicapped persons or criminals. Though the nature of these laws did not outright target certain races or social classes, a disproportionate amount of the individuals sterilized were non-white or of immigrant background. Prominent eugenicists and eugenic organizations in the U.S. played a key role in lobbying for state sterilization laws. Harry H. Laughlin, superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office, drafted the American Model Eugenical Sterilization Law in 1922, which served as a model for many sterilizations laws in the states (Berenbaum, 1998). By 1926, 23 states had passed sterilization laws that were voluntary and/or involuntary in nature (Sofair, 2000). Laughlin and other eugenicists called for the sterilization of institutionalized individuals under the assertion that their “genetically inferior” traits would be passed to their progeny and be an economic drain on the state. Many states complied, and by 1935 over 30 states had some form of sterilization law with over 21,000 compulsory sterilizations performed (Allen 1997). Though the eugenic nature of these laws was stressed by eugenicists, it was acknowledged that the political support of such laws were greatly financially motivated. Another important legislation passed by the U.S. was the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, which was the first immigration quota

Mother Behind Bars examines a lot of inadequate policies and procedures that these states have in place for federal and state correctional facilities. This report card bring up the issue on prenatal care, shackling, prison nurseries, and family based treatment as an alternative to incarceration however in this paper I will focus on the restraints on these pregnant inmates. New Jersey received a grade of D for shackling policies. Besides New Jersey thirty-seven other states obtain a D/F for their failure to comprehensively limit, or limit at all, the use of restraints on pregnant women transportation, labor, delivery, and postpartum recuperation (National Women’s Law Center, 2010). The use of restraints can compromise the health and safety of the women and the unborn child. Shackling pregnant women is dangerous and inhumane; women prisoners are still routinely shackled during pregnancy and childbirth. The reason these women are shackled is for safety and security, despite the fact that shackling pregnant women is degrading, unnecessary and a violation of human rights some state still condone this practice.

Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” or whether she “was simply and plainly terminated as an employee at will for taking an unauthorized, extra break.” Allen’s original complaint was termination attributable to discrimination, based on pregnancy and related

Since taking the reins in 2006, Cecile Richards has spearheaded Planned Parenthood through difficult times to ensure it has emerged better than before.

With an increasing number of women entering the workforce, pregnancy discrimination has become a pervasive problem. This paper, which focuses on the United States (US), thus considers the underlying reasons and impacts of this biasness from the perspectives of both employee and employer. It then follows with a study on the legal protections in place to prevent such behaviour. And lastly, it will analyse various ethical issues involved in this unequal treatment of pregnant employees in the workplace using ethical frameworks such as Utilitarianism theory, Kantian Ethics and John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness. These ethical frameworks will help highlight

While legislators believe that this policy will effectively sort out the “worst of the worst” (Gonzales & DuBois, 2014), this reporter doubts the efficiency and utility of the policy. If the aim is to force mothers into treatment, then perhaps sending them to jail is not the most effective method. Those defending the law have sent mixed messages around how it should be carried out, some describing the law as a “velvet hammer” while others employ it as a strong-arm tactic used to bust women who use narcotics (Beyerstein, 2014; Goldensohn & Levy, 2014). This, in addition to the previous legislation protecting mothers, makes it uncertain how a woman will be received when she reveals her substance use. Likewise, the chances of getting arrested

The Title X Family Planning program was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act (Public Law 91-572 Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs). Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs (OPA) oversees the Title X program (U.S. Department of Human Services, 2014).

Around the early 1900’s, concern for child and women labor grew throughout the American public. In the factories, women faced discrimination as employers would usually pay woman about one-half the salary as a man for the same job received. During this period, working conditions were terrible as these factories were not air-conditioned or heated and women worked for

The Center of Medical Progress has accused Planned Parenthood of selling and profiting off of aborted fetal tissues, which is illegal. Planned Parenthood has been caring for people for years now. The background of Planned Parenthood abortions is just like any other organization, and from what they say, and the way they follow the same policies. The videos that feature Planned Parenthood officials buying and selling fetal tissue makes people believe that everything that they see from the videos is all true. Planned Parenthood defends themselves by using the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993.

Infant safe haven laws are in place so that parents can safely and easily give up their babies, if they are unable or unwilling to care for them. These laws are in effect in the United States and Puerto Rico. Each state has its own specific infant safe haven law. Each state also has specific places where you may surrender your baby, such as a:

In reviewing a woman’s right to abortion, I defer to the Eight and Ninth Circuits’ decision in part, finding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional. Here, I dissent the Court’s decision ruling the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act should be sustained. The Act restricting abortion procedures that are proven to be reasonably safe, without any exceptions to the ban, fails to provide safeguards for a woman’s life or health. It imposes substantial obstacles in her path to choose her faith and to exercise her reproductive right protected by the Constitution.

This paper explores three published articles that report on how many women lack job security when working while pregnant. Many are either denied the special accommodations or forced to quit their job. The Pregnant Worker Fairness Act (PWFA) is a bill currently pending in Congress, that would help to end any type of discrimination towards pregnant workers and ensure that they would be able to continue working to support their families. The articles all agree that the PWFA would put in place rules and guidelines for employers to follow that would help protect the job of the pregnant employee. Brown (2016) states that much has changed for women in the workforce during the last half-century, but treatment of pregnant workers remains frustratingly

Bill number A1700 is designated as the “Protection of Fetuses against dismemberment abortions”, it is sponsored by Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer of district 12 (Burlington, Middlesex, Monmouth, and Ocean) of the state of New Jersey. Essentially this bill is stating that dismemberment abortion should be prohibited. The bill cites examples of when dismemberment abortion would be acceptable, who would be liable and not liable if dismemberment abortion took place, and also why this method of abortion should be prohibited. This bill is being sponsored by a Republican Party member, so for the interview a representative of the Democratic Party was chosen so that a completely different point of view could be brought to light on the issues stated within the bill. The democratic representative chosen is Mr. Scott Devlin who is from district 37 of the state of New Jersey and he is identified as the legislative director of Assemblyman Gordon M. Johnson and member of Senator Loretta Weinberg’s team. As part of the Senator’s team acting as a legislative director Mr. Devlin is influential in the position that the Senator has in regards to bills and issues found within the state. Because of his influential position as legislative director, Scott Devlin was a good representative to interview since he was not only knowledgeable on the bill, but he was also aware of his Senator and Assemblyman’s point of view of the bill.