Non-Profit Organization: The Little Sisters Of The Poor

When Christmas comes around, it’s time for all the different types of charities to come out. The Salvation Army is one of them; they are out everywhere looking for people to give money. When they are ringing the bell, people do not ask what does this support. They are instantly digging in their pockets, wallets, and purses to find loose change. When they find coins or dollar bills, they just put them in the red bucket and keep on walking. Why do people do this? People should research charities before giving because the money may not be spent on what the charity says, may not reach the people in need, or could just go to waste.

“The Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati is an apostolic Catholic community of women religious that exists to carry out the Gospel of Jesus Christ through service and prayer in the world” (qtd. in “About the Sisters of Charity”). The Sisters are led by their mission statement to be “[u]rged by the love of Christ and in the spirit of [their] founder, Elizabeth Ann Seton, [the] Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati strive to live Gospel values. [They] choose to act justly, to build loving relationships, to share [their] resources with those in need, and to care for all creation” (qtd. in “Mission Statement”). Through this mission, they dedicate themselves to “the education of children, care of orphans, the poor and the sick” (qtd. in “Sisters of Charity Cincinnati”). These values are exemplified in numerous ways but specifically have been shown with the creation of educational institutions, orphanages, and their selflessness during the civil war.

In today’s society, the separation of church and state is a fundamentally important aspect of our government. Most any citizen would agree that the government should operate based on the law and the constitution, not on the individual 's religious beliefs, yet when the issue is Abortion, that stance is flipped. The debate over abortion rages on despite the supreme court giving women the right to abortion in 1973 with the ruling of Roe v Wade. Looking at both sides objectively, the pro-choice arguments lineup with facts, while the pro-life arguments are either supported by facts yet purposefully misinterpreted, or simply not factual at all. State governments pass laws that regulate abortions and abortion centers all in the attempt to close these centers down and stop women from getting abortions at all, including situations of rape or incest. Just as the government in Brave New World controls the bodies of women by keeping them on contraceptives and controlling their bodily functions through medication, the American government seeks the same control over what women do and don’t do with their body by denying them abortions and birth control.

The contraceptive coverage in the new Health Care law makes preventative care more accessible and affordable to millions of Americans. This is particularly important for women who are more likely to avoid the cost of contraceptives because of cost. To help address these barriers in terms of cost and ensure that all women have access to preventative Health Care Act, all new private insurance plan that covers a wide range of preventative services such as breast x-rays, pap smears smoking prevention and contraception without co-payments or requirements for sharing other costs. The current problem is that the Affordable Care Act is imposing on the 500 store chains of Hobby Lobby’s religious rights by forcing the company to provide full coverage of contraceptives of the 13,000 workers as part of its health care plans. David Green and family, whom founded Hobby Lobby, believe that the healthcare act is violating their held religious convictions.

The case of A.C.L.U and Planned Parenthood v. Pence has brought attention to the Supreme Court with the question of which of the two is of greater importance: the duty to honor the woman’s autonomy versus the duty to respect potential life. Indiana’s governor, Mike Pence, has signed a House Enrolled Act No.1337 to amend the Indiana health code, which will go in effect on July 1 of 2016. The act affects abortions in several ways which include that doctors much provide perinatal hospice care information to women considering abortion after receiving a diagnosis of a lethal fetal anomaly, prohibits all abortions solely based on fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis of the fetus having any disability, and lastly requires the women to take responsibility financially for the disposal of the remain of any abortion or miscarriage. After the act was signed into law, A.C.L.U of Indiana and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky sued Governor Pence on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional. The A.C.L.U and Planned Parenthood won in the district court. The case was appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and was reversed. Today, the court responds to the petitioners’ appeal by holding that Indiana’s House Enrolled Act No.1337 is unconstitutional. This decision stems from the recognition that the law while attempting to do its duty

Two of the biggest problems The Little Sisters of the Poor face are getting turned down for grants, sponsorships, and fundraisers. These are the main money sources for the not-for-profit organization. The second problem is meeting government requirements and standards.

As the Courts continue to argue in terms of morality, their attitudes when it comes to dealing with cases concerning abortion are vague, even as they succeed in placing financial burdens on the process (Engstrom 25). Unfortunately, the ambiguity present allows for those who can’t afford their constitutional right to go through potentially harmful ‘back-alley’ abortions and risk their lives during the process (Engstrom 7). The Hyde Amendment and Supreme Court cases, such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, are examples of the way Courts and Congress have placed restrictions on low-income women when it comes to obtaining an abortion (Engstrom 14). They do this through ‘back-door’ attempts that succeed in eroding at crucial legislation as they are refrained by current legislation from taking on the law directly (Engstrom 2). These restrictions can lead to horrible outcomes for women who are desperate enough to explore riskier options (McGee 102-103). Low-income women are facing limitations established by funding restrictions within the Hyde Amendment and the ambiguity of the Court in contradicting cases (Engstrom

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court of the United States “must decide in these cases whether [RFRA] permits [HHS] to demand that three closely held corporations provide health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners” (1). In outlining the issues for the decision, the Court must first decide whether or not corporations can sue under RFRA then employ the Sherbet test as was reinstated through RFRA to determine whether or not there exists a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion as established in the 1st amendment, and whether or not the interests of the government outweigh such a burden. While the question of a slippery slope is not directly raised by the lawsuit, both the majority and the dissent consider it to determine the effects of the decisions being made. In response to the first question of corporate personhood, the majority argues that because “a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings” that “allowing [the companies] to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the [owners]” (7-8). The dissent, disagreed, believing that allowing corporations to sue under RFRA creates the potential for large corporations to seek exemption from many more laws while citing immeasurable religious beliefs. Although both opinions agreed that providing the contested contraceptives is a compelling government interest, the majority believes

Recently in California, there is some controversy around the Reproductive FACT act (Chemerinsky, 2015). This act requires healthcare facilities to have displayed or posted the public programs, which can provide immediate free or low cost family planning services, which include contraception, abortion, pre-natal care and more. There are non-profits and other organizations saying this is an infringement of their first amendment rights. It is argued that they have no ground on this stance because they are not being asked to perform or advocate for these services, but their patients need to have access to such information. This also is not singling out religious groups it applies to all healthcare facilities (Chemerinsky, 2015). This is very scandalous

Jill E. Adams  is the founding executive director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at Berkeley Law.  Before joining Berkeley Law she was the executive director of Law Students for Reproductive Justice for six years. She was one of 37 Soldiers of Social Change in San Francisco Magazine’s annual power issue, she is the youngest person to have received the Wallace Alexander Gerbode Fellowship for nonprofit leadership award. This piece is about the legalities of abortions and how the law is regulated and funded for. This

An extraordinary amount of media’s attention has been devoted towards Hobby Lobby’s slight victory through a decision by the Supreme Court in their most recent Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014). The attention was focused on the court’s decision that essentially negated corporations claiming religious objections to certain contraceptives from participating in the mandate. Depending upon the participation and religious

In the landmark decision of Burwell, Secretary of Human Health Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the United States Supreme Court allowed closely held for-profit corporations to exercise religious freedoms that could deny its female employees health coverage of contraceptives. The contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will now excuse religious for-profit companies from providing contraceptives which may prevent implantation. Previously, this exemption was only provided to non-profit religious organizations such as churches. The decision was not unanimous with the Supreme Court Justices split at 5-4 and was highly contested. The majority supports that the contraceptive mandate of the ACA violates for-profit companies’

Have you ever seen a child somewhere and you just want to help them and let them know that they matter? Every time I see a child on the street that is wearing dirty clothes, I want to take them to the store and let them pick out their favorite clothes. Because I would love to work for an organization that helps youth in the community, I chose to do my project on the Lowcountry Orphan Relief, Inc. This incorporation is located in North Charleston, South Carolina. Lowcountry Orphan Relief also known as LOR has existed for 12 years. In this paper, I am going to give you information about this program and how they help the adolescents of the city who are not taken care of adequately or are completely neglected. The mission of LOR is “to provide basic

As a non-profit organization, our company has been profoundly doing well in helping raise money for families. Being with an organization which is committed to providing assistance to families in impoverished towns is very generous. Although, there is a concern I would like to address regarding using certain data we are using in our annual reports.The company uses pie charts to display data and prefers one type of pie chart over the other. I feel that we should use the pie chart which demonstrates the percentages.

In today’s world there are hundreds of thousands of non-profit organizations (NPOs) established at the local, regional, national and international level, and their influence is increasing. Non-profit organizations even considered the third sector of the economy (the first two is the public and private, or commercial). It is believed that they have a special role in development of civil society. In those countries, which have largely shaped the system of legislative regulation of the sector (USA, UK, Australia, etc); the state spends huge sums on research programs in the field of standardization of the NPO.