State of Washington Pulls The Plug On Death Penalty

The Supreme Court of the State of Washington has killed the death penalty. Part of its rationale was that capital punishment is imposed in a racially biased manner. According to a report by ottawasun.com, the decision was unanimous in the appeal of a man who was found guilty to having raped and murdered a woman in her home. The court held that capital punishment isn’t equally applied, and that it’s cruel and unusual under the state’s constitution. All of the state’s inmates who are on death row had their penalties converted to life in prison based on racial or other considerations.

The court stated that the use of the death penalty isn’t applied equally. Factors that sometimes influenced sentencing included where the crime occurred, the county of the defendant’s residence, budgetary resources at different times and the defendant’s race. The court relied heavily on a study that was performed on behalf of the appellant. The study found that depending on the statistical method used, black defendants were 3.5 to 4.6 times more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants. The court also found significant differences from county to county in decisions to seek the death penalty. Washington is now the third state to pull the switch on the death penalty as a result of a finding of racial disparity. Massachusetts and Connecticut are the others. Capital punishment is still permitted in 30 states. A moratorium on the death penalty in Washington had been in effect since 2014.

In the subject case, the defendant’s conviction was overturned. That was partially based on prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. A second jury was chosen for purposes of sentencing, and that jury also imposed the death penalty. By law, that sentence was required to be reviewed by the Washington Supreme Court. The law requires the court to inquire into whether the death penalty is excessive or disproportionate to penalties in similar cases. The defendant successfully argued that in his case, the sentence was disproportionate.

The court’s ruling was that the death penalty in the State of Washington was unconstitutional as administered. The issue that wasn’t addressed in the court’s decision is whether the state’s legislature intends on drafting a new death penalty statute that’s consistent with the decision in the subject case. If it does, it’s highly likely that the new statute will be challenged sometime in the future.

Lawyer For Trump Foundation Says Lawsuit Against The Charity Fueled By Bias

A foundation named in honor of United States President Donald Trump has requested that a judge in New York move to dismiss a lawsuit filed against it. The lawsuit was filed by the state’s Attorney General in response to activities of the non-profit. Both Trump and the foundation have characterized the lawsuit as a politically motivated attack.

A lawyer for Donald Trump said that the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Barbara Underwood was no more than an effort on the part of her office to lead a charge against the president. The lawyer claims that the resistance operates by attacking him whenever possible and filing lawsuits when agreements could be reached.

Underwood is a Democrat that inherited the results of a 21-month probe by former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Attorney General Underwood said when speaking in June that the investigation into Trump Foundation affairs alerted her office to numerous unlawful actions that were committed with the attempt to benefit Donald Trump.

Alan Futerfas, a lawyer employed by the Trump Foundation, says that funds collected by the Foundation have been completely accounted for and that ‘nearly every penny’ was spent to benefit individuals that were in need. Futerfas went on to say that no one involved with the Foundation committed any illegal acts. This includes three adult children of Trump that are affiliated with the Foundation in various capacities.

Futerfas has also openly questioned the failure of Underwood and the AG’s office to pay any attention to the many allegations of wrongdoings that have been lodged against a foundation associated with former President of the United States Bill Clinton.

A spokeswoman for Underwood, Amy Spitalnick, added to the fray via Twitter by saying that Attorney General Underwood has no intention of backing down in her efforts to assure that Trump and his associates are held accountable for improper practices taking place in the state of New York.

Spitalnick explained that the Trump Foundation in New York amounted to nothing more than the then-presidential candidate’s ‘personal piggy bank’ and was used to further both the political and business interests of President Trump.

The lawsuit by the Attorney General was filed in a Manhattan state court of New York. The lawsuit is asking that the court recoup $2.8 million dollars from the Foundation and force its dissolution. The lawsuit also asks that the three Trump children involved with the Foundation be banned from associating again with a charity in the state of New York.

A Solution for the Increased Eviction of Tenants.

According to statistics, the level of wages has stagnated for several years now. The high cost of housing has therefore led to a high eviction rate in the country as most tenants are unable to cater to their rent. This worrying trend is evident all over the country. According to a book written by Mathew Desmond, most low-income earners spend a significant amount of their monthly income on rent. The author estimated the rent and the electricity bill payable by most low-income earners to be over 70% of their income. Even though a majority of the evictions are not done according to the law, most tenants do not seek legal help.
Statistics show that barely 20% of the evicted tenants go to the courts. As a result, some innovators have been developing a program for the tenants to find justice after unlawful evictions. Two innovators from Brigham Young University and the University of Arizona are the brains behind the idea. After the completion of the program, the number of evictions is expected to go down significantly and also the facilitating the acquiring of the appropriate attorneys in cases of unlawful evictions. According to the Dean of the Brigham Young University, Gordon Smith, there was a need for collaborations with other stakeholders in the legal field to develop an appropriate solution for the tenants across the country.
The dean revealed that some of their students carried out a study and discovered that most residents find a hard time when faced with legal battles in areas such as debt collections, evictions, and divorces. Some of the target areas include Arizona and Utah. However, the developers expect to come up with a solution for the whole country soon. The number of daily evictions recorded in 2016 from Utah was estimated at 7.61 while Pima County in Arizona had about 22. The statistics were compiled by the Eviction Lab.
Some citizens find it hard to use the current civil legal system. The innovation is expected to encourage more law students to help in minimizing the number of evictions by helping the tenants to understand their constitutional rights. One of the main challenges to the developers of the program is the variations in the legal guidelines regarding the evictions. Different states have different legislation on the issue. Most eviction laws favor the owners of the residential buildings. In some states, the tenant is issued with an eviction notice and expected to respond in a very short period.

Read More: https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/ireland-housing-crisis-eviction-renters

Trump’s Legal Team Is Preparing To Fight A Mueller Subpoena

The tension caused by Trump’s refusal to sit down with Robert Mueller’s team of investigators is creating an assortment of what-if scenarios in the legal community. When the Mueller investigation got started over a year ago, Mr. Trump said he would sit down with Mueller because he has nothing to hide. But as the investigation drags on, and more people are facing prosecution for their ties with Russia, and the alleged interference in the 2016 election, Trump is changing his tune. Trump’s lawyers now say he will talk to Mueller, but Mueller can only ask the president softball questions. Talk of collusion and obstruction of justice are off the table if Trump sits down with Mueller.

Rudy Giuliani, the no-holds-barred former New York prosecutor, and mayor of New York City is the legal front man in this comedy of legal maneuvering. Giuliani sent Mueller a message last week, and Mueller didn’t reply. In Rudy’s legal mind that means Mueller is going to subpoena the president. And Rudy and the other members of Trump legal team are ready to do what they do best. They are going to fight like Manny Pacquiao fought when he got hammered by Floyd Mayweather in 2015. Manny had a shoulder injury so his performance was not up to par. Trump has another type of injury that could predict the outcome of this pending legal battle. That injury is his inability to tell the truth.

But truth doesn’t always matter when legal battles enter the courts. Perception takes the place of truth in some courtrooms. And Giuliani and Trump are master perception manipulators, according to people close to the legal titans who are preparing for this legal showdown. Mr. Giuliani and the Trump’s legal team are ready to take the fight to the Supreme Court. But some legal analysts say the fight won’t last that long. Other analysts say a subpoena battle could last several months.

The midterm elections are approaching, and Trump is playing a major role in those elections. More legal dirt throwing could mean the Republicans will lose their majority in the House and possibly in the Senate. But Trump is willing to take that risk to protect his position. Some legal experts say Giuliani and Trump are waiting for a verdict in the Manafort trial before they do anything. If the verdict is an acquittal, Trump will use that to his advantage, according to Giuliani.

Judge Rules Against Trump Administration Ban On Transgendered Military Personnel

A U.S. Court decided on Monday that the administration of President Donald Trump will not be allowed to enforce s policy that would ban some transgendered individuals from serving in the United States military. The ruling is the second of its kind by an American court since the policy was introduced by the administration in March.

The announcement was made by President Trump on March 23 that he would support a plan proposed by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis that would disallow military service of transgendered individuals that are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This distinction replaces a previous ban to all transgendered people that was announced by the president via Twitter and said to be due to increased medical costs and reduced military focus that result from their service.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, of the United States District Court in Washington, refused a request by the administration to consider lifting an injunction she previously issued against the Trump ban.

A similar ruling occurred in Seattle last April when another federal judged refused to allow the president’s ban to go into effect. The administration has appealed this ban to the Court of Appeals in the 9th District.

The argument made by Trump and his administration is that the updated ban no longer constitutes a categorical ban on all transgendered individuals wishing to serve the nation’s military.

Kollar-Kotelly expressed her disagreement with this assertion in her opinion in which she says the president’s ban does effectively amount to a categorical ban by making proxies of the transgendered status its focal point. The judge also singled out an aspect of the president’s policy that seeks to have all individuals serving the military to serve in the capacity of their ‘biological sex.’

Gender dysphoria is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as ‘clinically significant distress’ resulting from an individual’s conflict with their gender identity and their birth sex. The association holds the view that not all transgendered people are suffering from gender dysphoria.

The ruling on Monday stems from a lawsuit filed on behalf of several current members of the armed forces as well as aspiring service members. Kollar-Kotelly ruled in the original proceedings that the ban violates the Constitutional provision that all citizens are to be guaranteed equal protection under the law.

A trio of other judges has also demonstrated their disagreement with the ban which has forced the U.S. military to allow openly transgendered personnel within its ranks.

California Supreme Court Rules Yelp Isn’t Required to Remove Negative Review of Law Firm

The Supreme Court of California made a decision by overturning a ruling made by San Francisco Superior Court, stating that Yelp Inc. does not have to delete negative consumer reviews from its website.

According to legalnewsline.com, the case dates back to 2012, when Ava Bird went to Yelp to leave a negative review about the law firm that represented her in a personal injury case. Hassell Law Group attempted to sue her after discovering the review.

Managing partner of California law firm Haight Brown and Bonesteel, David Evans, stated that the court was divided on the matter in spite of the final ruling, which took place on July 2, 2018. He explained that three judges believed Yelp should win the case, while another three disagreed.

Bird and the law firm had reached an agreement. However, there were emails back and forth between Dawn Hassell, the owner of Hassell Law Group, and Ms. Bird that resulted in the revelation that Bird was dissatisfied with the way the firm was handling her case. As a result of the exchanges, the law firm withdrew its representation.

Subsequently, the law firm discovered a review on Yelp from someone who had rated it one out of five stars. According to the Supreme Court, that review was posted by a user called “Birdzeye B” and that the individual said in the review that the law firm is not even worthy of one star and urged others to avoid it.

According to the opinion, Hassell believed that Bird was the person who posted that review. She then sent her an email and accused her of slander and trying to intentionally damage the reputation of the business.

This was not the only one-star review the law firm received on Yelp. In early February 2013, there was one from a user called “J.D.” from Alameda.

Two months later, the plaintiff Hassell filed a lawsuit against Bird in San Francisco Superior Court, claiming that she authored both negative reviews and that she was being libelous. Dawn Hassell also claimed emotional distress. Yelp was not named as a defendant in the case.

The opinion stated that, in the event that the plaintiffs later decided to add Yelp as a defendant, Yelp could claim immunity under section 230. Section 230 exists for the purpose of promoting free exchange of ideas or information on the Internet.

Evans stated that protecting websites like Yelp is a priority, but that the other side should also be considered. He said Yelp doesn’t want to be sued every time a user posts a negative review about a company and that was why section 230 was enacted.

Governor Jerry Brown is reported to head to the Supreme Court where he expects his pension law case to be heard.

Before Jerry Brown exits his seat as the California boss, he wants the Supreme Court in the state to determine a lawsuit that could permit his successor to decrease or modify pension welfare for California public workers. Governor Jerry Brown’s office asked Chief Justice Tani Cantil- Sakauye to hurry up the state Supreme Court’s contemplation of a lawsuit that was filed. It challenged a Marquee law that was signed six years ago. The law restricted pension benefits for all the public workers that were hired from 2013. Precisely, the lawsuit is pushing for a change on a tiny part. If the lawsuit is heard and altered according to how Jerry Brown wants, it will have restored a pension benefit that the law had canceled which permitted public workers to buy extra years of service that was previously credited to their pensions.

However, both sides, the Governor’s office, and the Supreme Court have argued that the stakes at hand were excellent. According to Sac Bee, a win by Governor Jerry Brown would see a massive dent in the California Rules. Technically, the rule restricts agencies from decreasing pension benefits for all the current workers and retirees except if they deliver additional reimbursement to counterbalance the loss income. Governor Jerry Brown is so eager to erase the precedent. The rule generally blocks public agencies and cities from making even little alterations to pension strategies even as the workers spending on retirement plans elevate. Jerry Brown argued that crucial city services were at high risk. This included the capacity to fund fire protection and the police. In October last year, Jerry Brown’s office took a major step to release Attorney General Xavier Becerra off his duties so that the law against the trial from the union that signifies California Fire workers would be pushed for hearing.

An attorney in Brown’s office, Rei Onishi wrote to the Chief Justice a note saying that the move was considerably energetic in large section by Governor Jerry Brown’s profound concern for the economic honesty and creditworthiness of public pension systems in the entire state of California. The letter went on to state that, as the term for Governor Jerry Brown neared to end, the Governor’s office humbly commended the Supreme Court for considering the issue for argument as soon as possible. The Supreme Court had not yet responded to the request that was sent. Governor Brown’s office said that it would continue to stress on the matter till things were changed.

Judge Makes Ruling in Child Reunification Effort

Starting earlier this year, the Trump administration began what it called a zero-tolerance policy regarding those who were crossing into the United States illegally. When parents crossed over the border with their children, the children and the parents were separated with the adults being taken to detention centers while the children were placed in separate facilities designated for their care. After an outcry against this policy of child separation, President Trump reversed the child separation policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed numerous lawsuits in federal court seeking to have the children reunited with their parents as quickly as possible. One federal judge ruled that the children under five years old had to be reunited with their parents by July 10. Children over the age of five are required to be reunited with their parent by July 26.

The reunification of children with their parents has hit a snag, and the ACLU was back in court this week challenging another policy by the Trump administration. In some cases, parents who were seeking to be reunited with their children where being asked to pay the reunification costs before the children would be returned. In one case that was documented, this would have been approximately a $1900 fee to the parents.

On Friday, US District Judge Dana Sabraw ruled that the parents of separated children will not have to pay anything to be reunited with their children. She is the same judge the ruled on when the children must be reunited with their parents.

Representatives of the Trump administration argued that it was too much to ask for the government to have to pay the fees for 2,000 or more children that must be reunited. The judge simple said that it will happen.

The Trump administration is also balking over the speed at which the judge ordered reunifications to take place. The Trump administration argues that they do not have the time to make sure that children are being reunited with the correct people.

The judge has of yet not reversed or extended the timelines that she has imposed. The ACLU has stated that it will take further legal actions regarding this matter should circumstances warrant.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Phone Privacy Advocates

Telephones were the last thing on the mind of the Founders when the U.S. Constitution was written, as no one of that time had any idea that technology would become what it is today. Personal privacy was actually such a non-issue that that it was not even directly addressed when the document was being written, as books and newspapers were the only form of societal communication. In addition, crime had a completely different dynamic as well, with most criminal cases involving physical attack, gun fights, or various forms of theft. But, in today’s world, there are myriad ways in which a crime can be committed, commonly involving the use of a personal phone that leaves a wide array of information available for police authorities when attempting to solve crimes. The question today is one of priority, along with the view of the Supreme Court that people have at least a “reasonable expectation” of privacy in certain areas of their life. Today that area includes personal cell phone records.

The high court decided this issue in an appeal from a convicted individual who was accused of orchestrating several coordinated robberies of electronics stores while using the his personal cell phone to connect with other ring members. At issue was the concept of “reasonable means” of obtaining the information police used to solve the case. They used cell phone tower information that was accessed without a warrant and covered a time frame of over four months. According to the court, this extended swath of information gleaned from cell phone tower records was excessive.

The significance of this decision has much more impact than many people realize, as it will govern all investigations from now on when officers want to access phone records. The concept of “being secure in personal papers” is now extended to cell phone use as well, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion that the need for a personal cell phone is a fundamental necessity to function in modern society. Not only can phone information reveal individual private facts about the owner, but information extracted from phone records over a four-month period gives police officials much more personal information than needed to prove the charge.

The court ruled that because the requested records were not specific concerning what the police needed, this case was an example of governmental overreach that should be protected by a reasonable right to privacy concerning aspects of the defendant’s life that do not pertain to the case. Privacy rights advocates surely consider this decision a victory for the common person, even when being accused of a crime that can be proven they committed. And of course, police departments across the nation are saying it impedes their ability to do their job, but the U.S. Constitution has historically been pesky in that regard as well.

Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court-warrants-cell-phone-privacy.html

Will California’s Public Workers’ Unions Frustrate United States Supreme court’s decision?

Diana Corral, a soft-spoken young lady who is aged 36 years, doesn’t even look fit to be a County social worker. She even hardly fits into the typical pedigree of being a county boss. She is reported to love her job so much because she enjoys helping people. She is considered a helper who likes guiding the poor, the homeless and the disabled. She assists them in securing food stamps, cash assistance, medical care and insurance. Diana Corral is among the army that is on the warpath in California to stand against the effects of Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision. The protestors were trying to overturn the decision that was passed by the Supreme Court that seemed not be in their favor. They intended to outlaw the so-called fair share that was being taxed by the government unions.

The levies that are paid by employees that later decline to join the government unions have offset the collective bargaining costs. Unions are involuntary asked to represent the ‘free riders’. Experts have foreseen the extensive issues of dues-paying members. This has, in turn, crippled the labor movement. However, in California, there are 1.5 million union-protected public workers and also a labor-friendly council. That supposition might be incorrect. Corral reported that the Janus case had sparkled an issue in the workers. The employees have been sitting seeing the inequity, the rich continuing to be rich while the poor have grown to be poorer. Corral revealed that it was the moment for the working class American citizens to stand up and fight for the little that they have left.

According to her tone, Corral seemed more renewed and with energy. She meant a new action team for all the fourteen work sites. She asked all her colleagues to sign commitment cards. She reported that the cards had been approved by over 90% of her work members. She intended to legally re-enrol them for another year. If they were re-enrolled, it meant that they had to bargain their contracts. The cards were more significant as they represented the statewide representation of the worker’s plea. They were to push for a change after the Supreme Court passed a law that seemed not to favour them. She urged her work members to open their eyes and see what was happening. The court’s decisions was a wakeup call for them. It was a signal to the entire labour movement that had to fight for their rights so that the court can prioritize their demands.

Read Full Report: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article214022469.html

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to step down

Much of the media coverage surrounding U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement has focused on how and when his soon-to-be-vacant seat should be filled, but the 81-year-old jurist’s announcement that he would be stepping down after three decades on the court also raises a number of thorny legal questions. Justice Kennedy was widely viewed as a reliable conservative when President Ronald Reagan nominated him to replace Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. in 1988, but he has provided a crucial liberal vote in a number of important recent Supreme Court decisions.

This has progressive groups worried as President Trump has said that Justice Kennedy’s successor will be selected from a list of 25 names vetted and approved by a group of conservative legal activists. Pro-life and pro-choice organizations were especially vocal in the days following Justice Kennedy’s announcement as several cases dealing with abortion rights, and laws that have been passed in several states to restrict them, are likely to be argued before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

However, advocacy groups both liberal and conservative may be wise to remember that the voting records of Supreme Court justices rarely follow strict ideological lines. While Justice Kennedy provided a key vote to protect abortion rights in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he also voted to restrict these rights in cases including Hodgson v. Minnesota and Gonzales v. Carhart.

Justice Kennedy has long been admired by the LGBT community for his stance on gay rights, and he became one of their heroes in 2015 when he penned the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which was the case that gave same-sex couples the right to marry. However, his voting record on other liberal hot-button issues is not quite as progressive. He voted to strike down a Washington, D.C. handgun ban in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, and he wrote the majority opinion in the 2009 case Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, which allowed an Alaskan mining company to use a technique that environmentalists said would flood a large area with contaminated water.

Some Americans see lifetime appointments and the power to make law as unusual in a democracy, but the judicial branch has provided a robust defense against government overreach. The Supreme Court has been dominated by either conservatives or liberals many times during its 229 year history, but the nation has never fallen victim to the extreme versions of these ideologies as a result.

 

Will the Anti Trump Faction want an Investigation into the Retirement of Justice Kennedy?

The District of Columbia can be a crazy place at times. While the battle for power before the election of Donald Trump has typically been between the Democrats and the Republicans, the climate of Washington today is such that the paradigm is possibly overlapping. An example of this merging of what were once opponents is the call from a former Bush Administration official for an investigation into what spurred Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire abruptly, as though another investigation will expose a morsel of another something regarding Trump that appears underhanded.

When the announcement was made at the end of this court session it also included the actual date of July 31 as Kennedy’s last day as a member of the Supreme Court, meaning President Trump will now have an opportunity to impact the court for many years to come. This is also a transition that segveral on both sides of the aisle may not want to see, not to mention all of the left who want to attack Donald Trump for even eating Russian dressing.

University professor Richard Painter, who was once an official in the Bush Administration, claims the facts surrounding Justice Kennedy’s decision to step down must be investigated before Trump even gets an opportunity to name a nominee, citing Trump’s personal relationship with Kennedy’s son who works at Deutsche Bank. What many people do not realize is that Trump’s business bankruptcies impacted his personal credit rating as well after his companies went into bankruptcy, but Kennedy’s son found a way to influence the bank into re-establishing Trump’s credit status. According to a story published in the New Republic, Trump and Kennedy have been friends for many years with Kennedy’s son being a very trusted financier for the Trump brand.

Of course, the real problem for many who do not want to see the court transition is the potential revisiting of Roe vs. Wade, which is the decision that made abortion a fundamental right instead of just a medical option for women seeking the procedure. And, that is not to mention the direction the SCOTUS will take on future rulings. Trump has vowed to make a decision on a nominee in very short order with a potential vote coming before the fall, a vote the Democrats are already gearing up to avoid or stall. Critics of the “shady” relationship between Trump and Kennedy are even claiming Kennedy is “too young” to consider retiring from the bench that is a constitutionally protected lifetime appointment.

The fact that Kennedy is 81 years of age and may want to spend his remaining years in retirement is not an acceptable notion for many, as many justices stay on the court until death. But, one thing is for certain in this court appointment situation. The jury is still out.

The Netherlands Hopes To Eliminate Sexism In Muslim Culture Within Its Borders

Islam is the second-most popular religion on planet Earth behind Christianity with about 1.8 billion followers of the spiritual belief system around the world. Without writing a novel to explain the differences between Christianity and Islam, Muslims – followers of the religion of Islam – believe that Muhammed is the last prophet to spread the word of Allah – or the one, true God. Whereas Christians believe Jesus spread the proper word, Muslims believe that Muhammed’s version of religion is the only true interpretation of such prophecies.

Another major difference between the two religions is that the Qur’an – the holy book of Islam – is considerably more conservative than the Holy Bible. For example, Muslim women are required by religion, culture, and even law to wear garments like the hijab whenever they’re out in public or otherwise exposed to men outside of their respective families.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia’s province of Aceh all require women to dress in hijab when outside of their homes. Men aren’t required to abide by the same rules and can essentially wear whatever they want. Women in the three aforementioned places also have far fewer rights than men, though the three countries’ respective laws regarding women are different; even those women who do want to challenge their respective governments’ laws aren’t able to successfully influence them.

Unfortunately for women hoping to live with the same rights as men – whether those rights are dictated by Saudi Arabian law or simply by Muslim culture both inside and outside of Saudi Arabia and other countries throughout the Middle East – not all governments around the world attempt to level the proverbial playing field between Muslim males and females.

The Netherlands is now striving to bring greater equality to Muslim women in respect to men

In an effort to eliminate the gap between men and women who follow the spiritual reasoning of Islam, the Netherlands recently announced that its federal government had successfully passed a law that outlaws women – the bill effectively only targets Muslim women, though it applies to all females – from wearing garments that cover their faces when worn in public, including government facilities like hospitals, schools, universities, and on modes of public transportation like trains, buses, and trolleys.

The Netherlands outlawed both the niqab, a face-covering veil, and the burqa, a full-body veil, on Tuesday, June 26, 2018. Read full report on vox.com.

Legal Medication vs. Ethics

There have been changes in the US since the election of President Donald Trump. Ranging from immigration to transgender conflicts among other factors, things are becoming even harder. They might not be directly linked to Trump personally, but widely encouraged by his administration. According to hellogiggles, life has been harder for the American woman. The Trump administration has been enacting rules and laws that the public is up against. This includes former ex-first ladies and notable figures of the country.

A post has gone viral on both Instagram and Facebook about a woman’s experience from Arizona. Nicole Arteaga, a school teacher, shared how a pharmacist from Walgreen denied her legitimate medication. According to a statement given by Nicole to BuzzFeed News, she was nine months pregnant when her doctor said that her baby had ceased to grow. In fact, they couldn’t feel the baby’s heartbeat. Nicole opted for medication instead of surgery to terminate the pregnancy. Even with the doctor’s prescription, the pharmacist at Walgreen refused to sell it to her based on ethics.

Every discipline has ethics, and some, such as the medical institutions, have strict rules and repercussions for failure to comply. The (American Medical Association) AMA Code of Medical Ethics instructs doctors to meet the moral challenges of medical practice. The Principles of Medical Ethics requests a physician to respect the law. Additionally, to identify an obligation to pursue alterations in those necessities that are dissimilar to the paramount benefits of the patient.

According to Hello Giggles, reproductive rights are a long-term battle that women have been fighting against. The doctor prescribed the medication given the pregnancy wasn’t fully functional, and that the baby would die in the long-run. It wasn’t Arteaga’s wish to end the pregnancy. However, situations forced her to go ahead with the procedure. Nicole continues to express her feelings on the pride that comes with carrying a healthy baby. The miscarriage was the last thing Arteaga wanted, but given the situation, it was the last choice she had.

There is strictness in some countries when it comes to moral and religious beliefs. Pharmacists in Arizona are lawfully allowed not to fill prescription contrary to moral beliefs. This law extends to six other states as well where the Code of Medical Ethics is strictly observed. However, people feel the need for changes in these rules saying they are unfit for women. The opinion expressed by the contributor terms it unacceptable for physicians to deny patients prescriptions based on their beliefs.

Sacramento City Abides by the Newly Launched Program

Sacramento City Unified was facing a $24.3 million deficit. However, the unified board had earlier sat and unveiled $555.3 million budget that included eliminating a recently introduced summer program and dipped further into reserve funds. The budget was approved on Thursday night. It included $4 million in cuts to the existing programs. These included slashing a new Expanded Learning Summer Program. The program started on Monday in various Sacramento schools. The summer program was thoughtfully designed to deliver to more than 4,300 Sacramento K-12 students grade –level. The program aimed to offer assistance and other academic related advancement opportunities.

The cutbacks of the program were necessary. Recently, Gov. Jerry Brown had signed a budget that expanded the state’s education spending by $3.9 billion. According to Sac Bee’s report, this is an increase of 5%. This is the seventh year in a row that the Governor has been able to expand school funding. According to the chief communications officer for SCUSD, Alex Barrios, teachers and students did not feel if there was any difference that Jerry Brown was making. The added school funds were intended to be used in the rising health costs and the elevated mandatory state pension contributions. The budget had decreased from $567 million from the previous year to $555 million. Gov. Brown Jerry also warned of a possible recession. The district said in a press release that Sacramento, like other vast urban centers, it had prepared and make cuts for the upcoming budgets. This was in preparation for a potential slowdown.

The remainder is up to $24.3 million from $15.3 million. The amount is likely to project and reach $34.4 million in the coming years 2019-20120. In a press release that was held on Friday, Jorge Aguilar revealed that after a year, it has been crystal clear that the district had frequently faced significant fiscal difficulties. He continued to say that the district will start to address the challenges by developing central office cuts. They should oversee a hiring freeze and also see that other administrative cuts will not be a significant concern in the classroom.

Aguilar had great hopes that partnering with the board would likely expand some of the minimal investments that they had started. All the investments that they had done in the previous months would have assisted and promoted equity, social justice and access to the students. He regretted when he said that it was so unfortunate that the investments he was anticipating would no longer increase.