Supreme Court should rule in favor of pregnant workers

          In the recent Supreme Court case Young vs UPS, Peggy Young, a UPS package delivery driver is sueing United Parcel Service under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act after they refused to give a lighter workload. The question asked in this case is simple, to interpret what the pregnancy law means that requires pregnant women to be treated the same as other workers in how how much work they can do. I believe the supreme court should rule in favor of Young in order to help pregnant women be treated to there limitations while being effective workers.
          To answer the question of interpreting the current pregnancy law to me can best be explained like football players. Football players come in many different shapes and sizes therefore they have different skills and abilities but all play an important part of the team effort. The best way for me to interpret pregnant women in a workplace like UPS where heavy lifting is required is when linemen and skill players train. Linemen are usually bigger and heavy set so they can usually lift a lot heavier weight than skill players who are faster and more agile. At the end of the workout they are equally as tired even if some lift more than others. This to me is an accurate comparison, it is similar to how pregnant workers may not be able to have the same workload but still be as productive as they can be.  The fact that UPS denied to give her a lighter workload was not only inconsiderate but also could put the baby at risk. And Young cannot just quit because then she will be months without an income and she has a baby on the way. The supreme court should rule in favor of her because pregnant women, while sometimes cannot have the same workload as others can still be productive under the right conditions and there should be specific policies in place for these women.
           Because I believe that pregnant workers should be given more rights in the workplace regarding workload, I also believe that it should be within some parameters. A couple of Supreme Court Justices stated that this kind of interpretation could lead to pregnant women just getting really anything they want in the workplace. I do not believe they should have total freedom. Employers need to look at what the job at hand is and set some parameters as to how much leniency that can grant to these women in order for them to stay productive. Some measures that may be taken is an extra break or two for pregnant women, or place them in a job where heavy lifting isn't required.
          The supreme court I believe should ultimately rule in favor of Young and allow for more rights to be given to pregnant women. They should do so in order to create an equal workload in terms of expended energy and effort even if it means a lighter workload for women who are child bearing.

Obama finally being a man and taking action?

In correspondence with my presentation topic, Joe Kennedy III, published an editorial on The Huffington Post named "Executive Action should scrap Secure Communities." He commented on Obama's speculated upcoming action which will grant millions of illegal immigrants papers. Like i discussed in class, immigration policy reform has been at a stand still for a long time due to continuing negotiations failing. In his editorial, Kennedy immediately accused this standstill on the house republicans who will not budge on this issue. Kennedy is much in favor of this upcoming executive order because he feels it will clean up our system and help fix issues on the community level.

Kennedy urges his readers that this order should be carefully looked at in order to see it's effect on local communities. Because deportations don't take into effect peoples family status, some children are being left orphaned because there parents are being deported. Which Kennedy insist brings distrust into the community. By pushing this order he also feels that business in the country will be increased because by giving immigrants papers we are "expanding essential visas for businesses and innovators." He believes that this will help families by not tearing them apart and allowing them to have some extra rights in america which also adds trust within the community.

Kennedy also believes that this will help clean our system especially within agencies like secure communities and ICE which deport people. After doing some research, Kennedy found that a good portion (25%-50%) of people being deported don't have any criminal record. Which brings up the issue of if we are deporting the right people. With this order from Obama, immigrants who qualify would be protected from deportation, which would in effect help these agencies target the correct people to deport. Immediately cleaning up the system by directly protecting the good immigrants.

In conclusion, I do agree with Kennedy's support for Obama's action because it can only help clean up our system. It will give millions of workers papers which can only strengthen our country. I do believe just like Kennedy, that if created properly, this policy will protect the right people from deportation and allow for more trust within the community by not tearing apart families.

Debate on if voting should be a constitutional right

On November 3, 2014, The New York Times published an opinion editorial titled "Should Voting in an Election be a Constitutional Right." The opinion article presents this debate after the Supreme Court ruling Shelby County vs. Holder allowed laws towards voter registration that caused some already registered voters to lose there registration and hindered minority, and poor citizens from voting. There were about 5 debaters on this topic, one of the arguments came from House Representatives Keith Ellison and Mark Pocan. They discussed how politicians are basically discriminating indirectly because they don't restrict voters because of race or gender but rather do it indirectly by making voting harder. So in essence they are weeding out the poor, and focusing on the votes they want which takes away tons of votes. They propose that congress propose and amendment which "give Americans an affirmative right to vote and empower Congress to protect that right." The points they make are valid because it shows the corruption in our government. Because politicians are able to create policies on the local level to make voting harder it really effects the poor and middle class. By putting more restrictions on when to register and what you need to register like a photo ID which many citizens don't have. This is very important because especially during the midterm elections the state legislatures are being deeply affected. Many state governments are efficient and get a lot done but when many votes aren't counted due to voter ID laws and such it directly effects who is in office. Ilya Shapiro has similar comments when he essentially said that voter rights are fought by the rich to scare the poor from voting. Which brings up another point, where are the votes from these people? American citizens should have the "Guaranteed right" to vote. Which is what most of the debaters say. Some however, don't agree with pushing reform by amending the constitution, but rather have the supreme court be more tedious when it comes to reviewing cases dealing with voter rights. By rereading the constitution some of the debaters believe our guaranteed right to vote is embedded in the constitution its just the supreme court needs to do a better job of enforcing it. This argument is also exceedingly valid. The constitution does state that representatives be chosen by the people, and discusses how citizens vote for a president through the electoral college. Our constitution states this however many willing voters aren't able to vote. Some say that this wont work because it isn't specific enough especially for state legislatures to back off from their strict voting laws because some debaters feel because of the conservative nature of the supreme court nothing will get done. But to get an amendment passed which is like moving mountains in itself some of the debaters feel it would give this issue the specificity it deserves when it comes to voter ID laws.

Pentagon building rapid-response Ebola team

On Sunday, October 19, 2014, USA Today published an article titled "Pentagon building rapid-response Ebola team". The article summarized how the Department of Health and Human Services, a government funded operation, requested this team to be put together because they want to "'Ensure our nation is ready to respond quickly, effectively and safely in the event of additional Ebola cases'". The team is to have 20 nurses, 5 viral disease doctors, and 5 trainers that are specialized in safety protocols. The team is going to be sent to Texas to receive further training in infection control. This is important because Ebola is a serious infectious disease that has effected a lot of people in Africa and has began to show up in America. Most notably in Dallas where a man died about a week and a half ago and the nurses that treated him also contracted the disease. The article shows that our government is taking the necessary steps in order to stop the spread of this virus and be ready at a moments notice to only people in America. These actions taken I believe are the right ones because our government needs to take responsibility for situations like this and they are.
The article I chose is worth reading because it can inform you on the latest news regarding Ebola in America. Ebola is a serious illness that has began to effect people in America and citizens need to be informed of domestic threats like this one. This article covers what the government is doing to prevent the spread of this virus and gives some information on how Ebola has hit america so far.