Parental leave in the United States.

Claire makes a very interesting point about the United States' lack of parental leave. I do agree that the fact that this is a problem, many women have to stay home without any compensation or put their young infants in childcare before they may be ready for it and mandated maternal leave really should be implemented in the United States.

However, there are some problems with instituting parental leave here. First of all, Sweden is a great example of a country which has excellent parental leave and I'm not just saying that because I'm from there, I promise! However, Sweden has a population of about 9 million people, while only the state of Texas has 26 million people. This system is therefore a lot easier to implement because not as many people would be affected. Instituting parental leave in the United States, would be an enormous financial burden. So who would this burden fall on? Raising taxes or would the burden fall on the companies, companies who are already outsourcing much of their workforce to countries where they can pay their workers less?

Secondly, let me go back to the option of raising taxes to implement this. Sweden is a country which is generally rather supportive of taxation - and who has progressive taxation - with an approxiomate income tax rate of 30%, the country is generally more willing to contribute to the general welfare. Something that for example Texas is not as willing to do, Texas has a low taxes, low services approach which does not fit well with things such as parental leave. The United States in general are strongly against the raising of taxes and I do not see where the money to implement such a policy would come from. I really want this to happen but I see too many obstacles for this to happen in the near future. 

Not a choice

The validity of same sex marriage is an issue which is still controversial and still not solved in the  

United States. The issue has similarities to the issue of interracial marriages in the 1960s. Both interracial marriages and same-sex marriages are based on individual's feelings. Gay people do not choose who they fall in love with, in the same way as people falling in love with someone from another ethnicity, or anybody who falls in love with anyone.  It is a private matter and I believe that it is obvious that everybody should have the same rights and denying some people the right to get married goes against the constitution which says that we are all equal. You do not choose who you fall in love with and you should not encounter limitations just because the person you fall in love with is of the same sex, or of a different ethnicity. I do not believe that you should be treated differently because of your sexual preferences.

In 1996, after some states had permitted same-sex marriages, congress tried to prevent same-sex marriages from becoming legal all over the United States through the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which would have meant that same-sex marriages performed in other states would not be legal in states where same state marriages were not allowed. However, in June 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed DOMA and declared it unconstitutional. Thanks to the fact that the constitution states that if a state or local law conflicts with a national law, the national law will prevail, same-sex marriages all over the United States now have the right to federal benefits. 

Opponents of same-sex marriage use the argument that marriage between a man and a woman is the basis for creating and defining a family and that same sex couples can not have biological children together. To the people that try to hide behind this argument I'd like to first of all say: This may have been the norm before but things change, get over it. I'm also wondering how these people relate to people who cannot or doesn't want to have children. Do they have the right to get married and have the same benefits even though they are not creating the “nuclear family”? To people who do not believe that this is fair to the children because these children will get bullied etc., I'd like to, again, state that no child is born a homophobiac. If people would just stop judging others and teach their children true values such as respect and the fact that all people are equal, then this shouldn't be a problem. The problem lies with the bully and not the bullied.

Considering the fact that state and church are – and should be – separated, I do not believe that the fact that homosexuality supposedly goes against some people's faith should have anything to do with whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed in the United States. I fully support the fact that banning same-sex marriage is unfair discrimination against a minority group and the fact that it is still allowed to go on is helped by the fact that there is no federal law allowing same-sex marriages. If same-sex marriage was allowed all over the United States, then I believe that the discrimination would subside and that homosexuality would be more and more accepted. Some people would of course still oppose it, but if the country as a whole implemented a law allowing same-sex marriages then I believe that more people would eventually become more positive towards it because then that view would be more accepted. Some people believe that forcing states which have an overwhelming majority against same-sex marriage will have unfortunate results but I do not agree with this. If you look back in time to the 1960:s, the case Loving v. Virginia was taken to the Supreme Court. This case has similar attributes to today's discussion about same-sex marriages. An interracial couple was contesting the Virgina law which prohibited interracial marriages. The Supreme Court eventually came to the conclusion that laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional. I believe that the fact that this was made into law – despite a strong opposition – helped make interracial marriages more accepted and that the same thing will be the case with same-sex marriages. 

Same-sex marriage/adoption

I absolutely agree with Julie's editorial in the sense that everyone should be able to get married. It is a right that everyone should have. However, what I do not agree with is the editorial's view on same-sex adoption. 

The argument why same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children is tired and it is a form of victim blaming which I really do not approve of. What you are saying is that because other people are narrow-minded and bigoted, loving people should not be allowed to have children -- children who are in desperate need of a loving home. These children often live in horrible conditions. For example, watch the documentary Stuck for some information about the conditions of children in orphanages and tell me that loving, same-sex parents would give them a worse to be. It is true that there is a risk that some people will treat these children differently because of their parents sexual orientation. However, there is a risk that someone will treat you poorly for a number of reasons, but we can't let bullies win. Secondly, people who treat people differently because of this - or for any reasons - are the ones who are in the wrong, other people should not have to be punished because these people are judgmental and simpleminded. 

Just a few decades ago -- and stilll today in some areas -- interracial marriage was frowned upon and interracial children were looked down upon because they were of mixed race but this has - mostly - gone away today. Today, it is more accepted because people were forced to change their views. The public opinion changed and it will change in this area too. I understand that it is not exactly the same because this is about biological children, but I still believe that there are striking similarities which counter your argument. 

I know several same sex couples who have had biological children -- having children with friends or using sperm banks and/or surrogates -- and this practice is becoming more common each day. These children are loved and in some cases they have four parents who love them dearly, in some cases fewer just like in any other family where parents break up and find new partners. I believe that adoption should be an option for same-sex couples who can provide good homes. 

My body, my choice.

Every women should have the right to free abortions up until weelk 18 of pregnancy and after that if special circumstances apply. I will not rest until that right is guaranteed all over the United States.

It has been 40 years ago since Roe. v. Wade. The decision effectively legalized abortion in the United States, however, still today, 40 years later, women are struggling to get an abortion, unsafe abortions are still being done and women are dying because they do not have access to safe abortion methods.

In 2009, a 15-year old girl died in Michigan after an unsafe abortion. This young woman was too afraid to tell her parents about her pregnancy and the state requires minors to have parental consent to perform an abortion. This young girl was too afraid to tell her parents and therefore sought unsafe methods to end her pregnancy.

Because of this law and other restrictions, women in the United States are dying from unsafe procedures that could have been avoided if the laws regarding abortion would have been different. Some people may believe that Roe. v. Wade ended the problem but there is still a lot that needs to change and I will tell you why this is necssary.

People are still trying to introduce legislation limiting abortion in the United States and we need to continue fighting for the right to equality. Just this year, Texas introduced and after much controversy passed a bill which severely limits women's access to abortion in the state. Even though the Supreme court partially struck it down, this is a violation of women's right to privacy

Some people believe that banning abortion would make them stop, but the truth is that it would only lead to more illegal abortion clinics which are usually not safe and women may die or be harmed for life. According to the World Health Organization, 50 million abortions are performed each year. Of these, 20 million are illegal abortions.

This shows that banning abortion won't make it stop, it will continue but more women will die trying to take control over their own bodies. About 68000 women die every year from illegal abortion and an additional 5 million women have to seek hospital care after failed abortions. In some countries, as much as half of their health care budget on this, in these countries, abortions are illegal.

It is true that abortion should not be used as a contraception, but no one I have met who has gone through an abortion has taken the decision lightly. These are strong women who realise that they could not give a child a worthy life and they are not ready for parenthood. When this is the case, these women needs a way to end their pregnancy. Forcing these women to go through with the pregnancy to then – either raise the child or have it adopted is not fair to either one of them.

A common argument in the debate over abortion is that they can cause medical complications in the future – but first of all, so can going through with a pregnancy and the women going through with an abortion are aware of the risk. It' is their decision if the risk is worth it or not.

Some people say that many of the women who wants abortions are young and are not aware of what they are doing, well if they can't understand what an abortion entails, then they are certainly not ready to become mothers. Abortions are generally safe, if they are done by a medical professional who knows what he or she is doing that is. For abortions to be kept safe, they need to be easily accessible, and this is not always the case in the United States today.

Some people say that it is not fair that tax dollar money are being spent on abortions because it is not something that they support – but what about the consequences of smoking or obesity – all people don't support that or suffer from it but they are still paying for the prevention of that. I also wonder if these people are willing to pay for the needs of the child that the women are forced to have. The average cost of raising a child in the United States is 241.000 dollars, the cost of an abortion is between 350 and 1000 dollars.

Being pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean being pro-abortion, it simply means believing that every woman has the right to decide over her own body. Because in the end, it doesn't matter how many arguments we use, the simple truth is that every woman should have the right to make that decision for herself. If we lose that right, then we're losing rights that so many people have fought for before us. This isn't about religion, or money, it is about not letting all the women who have died from illegal abortions have died in vain. It is about fighting for the right to our own bodies, the fight for equality. If you're against abortion, then don't have one and let other people do what they want. 

Hypocrisy in the Republican camp

Liberal America has written a post about Arkansas state representative Josh Miller. Eleven years ago, he was in a car accident while drunk. However, it is not clear if he was driving or if his friend was driving. Because of this incident, he is paralyzed and his extensive hospital care bills were taken care of by Medicaid. He is now a state representative trying to abolish Medicaid, because he says the people receiving it are not deserving of it.

Liberal America is a blog which is devoted to liberal beliefs so its audience is mostly other liberals, making the post rather appropriate for the audience. The opinions found here are rather harsh but it is a blog and not a newspaper so it does not have the same need for objectivity. The fact that it is a blog which clearly advertise its liberal thoughts makes it even more appropriate. They are, however, putting words in his mouth by saying that the people he does not believe to be deserving of Medicaid are most likely Latinos or blacks. There are no references to Josh Miller ever saying this, but rather this seems to be an assumption which the writer is making.

This post links to the Arkansas Times to show the validity of the article's claims. This lends the story credibility. This is not just something that they have invented to make Republicans look bad. This event is true and it has happened and it shows the hypocrisy of many Republicans. Josh Miller obviously liked the Medicaid just fine when he needed it but at the same time he believes that he deserves it meanwhile other people do not.

I strongly believe that everyone deserves to be treated for illnesses and accidents, including Josh Miller. It would be easy to say that he does not deserve it because he brought it upon himself but that doesn't matter. Do I think that Josh Miller seem to be a good person? No, but that is beside the point. No one should have to be forced into lifelong debt because of the need for hospital care. No one should have to deny themselves access to health care because they can't afford it. It is unlikely that Josh Miller does not see the irony in the fact that he got basically free care for an accident which he brought upon himself, while at the same time accusing other recipients of Medicaid of being undeserving. It is not surprising to me, however. Taking a closer look at Republican policies shows that they seem to be mainly interested in helping themselves but not their fellow Americans.

Media conglomerates

The Guardian's Amy Goodman has written the column titled The monstrous merger of Comcast and Time Warner must be stopped - now where she writes about the possibility that Comcast might be allowed to buy Time Warner Cable and how this would be a blow against our democracy. For Comcast to be allowed to go through with this, the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must approve of it. Amy Goodman is an American journalist who has a long history of writing populist, pro-peace commentary throughout her career. She won the Ghandi Peace Award for "significant contribution to the promotion of an enduring international peace". Therefore we can say with a high degree of confidence that she has an agenda which reflects what is best for the good of humanity generally. Goodman is talking in her commentary here to the everyday, ordinary American who will be affected by a merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable. She is trying to reason with people who may be able to affect the FCC's decision. The problem is that Goodman believes that there is a possibility that this merger will be approved. One of the reasons she thinks that the government will not stop this is that the chairperson of the FCC is a former lobbyist for cable and internet-provider industries. She shows several examples of why these organizations probably do not have the people's best interest in mind. This is a well-written and well-researched column on an extremely important issue, the amount of people who own the media conglomerates is fast decreasing and these huge conglomerates are gaining more power and influence and unless someone stop this, we will lose even more of our freedom and liberty. Equally important is that this country's beloved capitalism is threatened with a monopoly, which will do no good for Americans or the market, because competition will be impossible.

Taking the NSA to court

Last year, the extensive surveillance that the National Security Agency has been doing was uncovered by Edward Snowden and the Guardian. Right now, some people are trying to make the Supreme Court rule that what the NSA did was unconsitutional. In this article from the Guardian, it details their efforts. The article details similar situations where the court has ruled differently in regards to surveillance without a warrant. This is an important article because many people seem to have moved on from the leaks without so much as a backwards glance and unless someone does something or people start changing their government, then this abuse of power will not only continue but it is likely that the surveillance will become more and more intrusive and violate our privacy even further. Finally, this country -- which freedom so many have died fighting to protect -- will not be free anymore.