Florida’s House of Representatives passed a bill which limits classroom discussion about a persons gender and sexual orientation. The bill is titled; the Parental Rights in Education bill but is known by critics as the “Don’t say gay” bill. This bill prohibits any type of conversation about sexuality or gender amongst those in kindergarten and third grade. Specifically, they cannot talk about sexuality in “a manner that is not age or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

This is a largely controversial bill and has many critics who disagree with the passing of this bill. There were different intentions behind passing this bill which included teaching children about boundaries at a young age. Along with this, they wanted to keep parents informed about what is going on in the classroom. However, critics of this bill say it will be life much harder for the LGBTQ youth. They believe it sends a terrible message to the youth saying that there is something extremely wrong about the topic of LGBTQ.

Seven members of the Republican Party voted against the bill. President Biden even had an opinion on the bill and strongly disagreed with it. Saying he will continue to fight for the protection and safety against this hateful bill. The bill went on to pass with a vote of 69-47. The republican who introduced the bill, Rep. Joe Harding says this bill is about empowering parents and allowing children to understand what is appropriate discussion to have in schools.

The biggest concern of this bill is that it allows parents who believe this rule was violated are able to sue. They can seek different reimbursement simply because of a discussion created by a five year old. If a parent believes there was an appropriate conversation brought up about gender that was not age appropriate, they can take further action. Overall, there seems to be endless issues and concerns that are brought up by critics.

This blog post is part of the CIMA law group blog. If you are located in Arizona and are seeking legal services, CIMA law group specializes in Immigration law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations. 

In 1973 the U.S. Supreme court ruled that restrictive regulation of abortion by a state was unconstitutional. Stating that it violated a woman’s right to privacy. Recently, there has been backlash from states regarding this decision. Individual states have been creating laws that limit the circumstances for which women can get abortions. In Texas, they passed Senate Bill 8, which went into effect on September 1, 2021. This bill limits the time women can get an abortion down to six weeks, with no exceptions for circumstances like sexual assault. Many advocacy groups are concerned with this as it is normal to not even know you are pregnant by that time. 

For some, the heart-breaking close-to-home stories of assaults that result in unwanted pregnancies, or pregnancy complications that threaten the mother’s life are enough to make them strongly oppose SB8. But for the legislators that pushed the bill through, it is a matter of misunderstanding what is allowed under the bill, but not providing any additional advice. Leaving doctors afraid that they will be vulnerable to lawsuits because there is such vague language. This fear leads them and their clients into dangerous situations, having to travel across state borders to get abortions in highly demanded clinics. 

The pressure put on different states, by those traveling to them to get abortions from different states has increased greatly over the past six months. These states bordering Texas have started looking into and drafting bills similar to SB8 in Texas, which would make it even harder for these women to find safe places to get their procedure. And a lot of those who seek abortions may not be able to afford to cross multiple states to get it done successfully. In Texas, there is a $10,000 reward to individuals who sue those they suspect to be practicing abortions after the six-week cut-off. 

This blog post is part of the CIMA Law Group Blog. If you are in need of legal help, the CIMA Law Group is a law firm in Phoenix, Arizona which possesses expertise in Immigration Law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations.

The Russian- Ukraine conflict began on February 20, 2022. The conflict has been ongoing long before that, but in February is when Russia decided to invade the borders of Ukraine. Russia had been encroaching on the Ukrainian borders for the past year which was increasing tensions tremendously over the past year not only with Ukraine but also with neighboring Eastern countries and the United States.

Switzerland has a long-standing history of remaining neutral on all sides of conflict. They remained neutral throughout World War 1, World War 2, Vietnam War, Korean War, and so many others. Switzerland announced on Monday, February 28th, 2022 that they will adopt the European Union imposed sanctions and they will freeze all of the Russian President’s Vladimir Putin accounts. Switzerland believes that what Russia did was a violation of “international law.” The Swiss Leader, Mr. Cassis stated that there was nothing that could have provoked Russia to invade Ukraine.

Switzerland even went as far as to decide that they will close flights going to Russia and impose entry bans against a certain group of people that have a close connection to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Russia responded to this a day later, banning flights to Switzerland as well.

This will have an impact on Russia because Switzerland has some of the most influential banks comparing to that of the United States and other influential countries. With that being said Switzerland has some close influential Russian ties with banking accounts. So this could be an issue for people in Russia with close influential ties to Putin that have accounts in Switzerland because there is a possibility that those accounts could be frozen.

This blog post is part of the CIMA Law Group Blog. If you are in need of legal help, the CIMA Law Group is a law firm in Phoenix, Arizona which possesses expertise in Immigration Law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations.

The pandemic has brought to light many issues and created even more. One of these issues is the racism surrounding Black farmers. Large plots of land owned for generations by Black families have shrunk in size over the past century. Going from being  14% of American farmers to only 1 in every 100. Most farmers do not make enough to sustain and expand their farms without taking out loans, but powerful organizations made to provide these loans like the USDA have been refusing to lend to minority farmers. 

Specifically, they have been refusing to give money to Black farmers, on account of deep-seated racism within the organization. This contributes greatly to the reason many Black farms have been evicted off of their property, and why the percentage of Black farmers has decreased so significantly. In the 1990’s the federal government promised a relief package to these minority farmers that never reached their hands because loan officers at the USDA refused to give it to them. More recently, when relief packages for the pandemic started rolling out, the United States government promised a large debt relief package for these farmers. And from the very beginning, White farmers have stood against this claiming that it discriminates against them. 

Some of these White farmers have filed lawsuits against the government claiming that providing relief based on race is illegal. These lawsuits have led to certain states putting holds on the money provided by the government. In turn made the situation increasingly worse for Black farmers, especially those already in debt who were counting on the money to help them continue working. The banks were also against the idea that all of the loans they had given were going to be paid off earlier, cutting them out of interest payments. In the end, the attempt to help minority farmers stay afloat and keep their land has been at a continued stalemate for about a year now, and the only movement seems to be those getting evicted.

On May 25, 2020, a man named George Floyd died after a store clerk suspected him of using a counterfeit 20 dollar bill and called authorities. Once authorities arrived on the scene, they forcibly removed Floyd from his car, and one of the officers Derek Chauvin got Floyd on the ground laying on his stomach and pressed his knee onto his neck, and held it there for over nine minutes. There were three other officers that were involved two of them held Floyd down while the other controlled the bystanders. Floyd died to the lack of oxygen.

On February 24, 2022, the three former Minneapolis police officers that were involved in the arrest and killing of George Floyd were found guilty of violating Floyd’s civil rights. The jurors of the trial found the three officers, Tou Thao, J. Alexander Kueng, and Thomas Lane were found guilty because the officers ignored Floyd’s civil rights by showing no care for Floyd’s medical needs, as one of the officers, Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for over nine minutes. Thao and Kueng were faced and charged with an additional charge for not intervening and stopping Chauvin. Lane however was not faced with this charge because he asked Chauvin to stop twice, and he did not comply.

Derek Chauvin was found guilty last year on account of murder, and he was sentenced to 22 and a half years in prison. The three officers who were just convicted, are free on bond awaiting their sentence hearing which has yet to be scheduled. George Floyd’s brother released a statement after the three officers were convicted saying that these officers that were convicted is not justice, it’s mere accountability because he would never be able to get his brother back.

While the three officers were convicted under civil charges. They are awaiting trial in June to see if they will be found guilty additionally under the charges of aiding and abetting murder and manslaughter. These charges brought against the three officers is a huge step forward in the right direction because no police officer has faced these kinds of intense charges before and it’s showing more accountability on law enforcement. Floyd’s case started a huge movement and implemented a lot of change regarding keeping law enforcement accountable and spreading awareness on racism that is embedded in our society.

This blog post is part of the CIMA law group blog. If you are located in Arizona and are seeking legal services, CIMA law group specializes in Immigration law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations. 

The United States does not have a universal healthcare program like many of the developed countries. In the US, health care is a combination of private health insurance along with public. As of right now, it is the most expensive system in the world. With that being said, it consumes about 18 percent of the gross domestic product.

Many people have compared this to the pre-industrial age in England. During this, people lived in their homes and worked out of them, remaining disconnected from all people. Today in America, many people work alone or in smaller offices. Solutions to this problem can be never ending when asking Americas what they believe should happen next.

Some believe there should be more money provided from Washington and Bureaucratic agencies which would then ensure all people have followed the rules. Some believe there should be a government run model that are used in countries like Canada and Europe. In Canada, people pay for health care though their taxed while here in the US people pay through copays or premiums. Along with this, the national government funds health insurance for things like hospital visits or general practitioner officer. Unlike America, it is illegal for private insurance to cover services that have already been covered by government insurance. One of the biggest differences between American health issues and other countries is how much a patient will pay at the time of the care itself.

After World War II was over, the US began giving tax breaks to those who got health care from their employer. Along with this came the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960’s. Although it was not intentional, with these programs created the cost skyrocketed. This meant that Washington will make the call to select special interests. After that came Obamacare which took over what was remaining of private insurance market through more mandates and regulations. As a result of this, premiums doubled in the first four years of Obamacare. Along with this, millions of Americans did not have as many choices when it comes to health care or their doctors.

Now, being in the twenty first century there is use of technology in order to organize the system. The breaking down of medical practice, fee system, and technology are all reasons behind Americas high health care cost. Today, most Americans get their insurance through their employer. Private insurance in America is paid through employer and employee payments. If Americans are not able to afford insurance they will go through Medicaid. However, most do not qualify for this benefit. As a result many Americans are uninsured or struggle to afford those prices.

This blog post is part of the CIMA Law Group Blog. If you are in need of legal help, the CIMA Law group is a law firm in Phoenix, Arizona which specializes in Immigration Law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations.

Social media greatly harms teenagers. Most teens in today’s world use an online social outlet of some kind. Social media has more cons than pros, but in The Washington Post’s “Five Ways Social Media Can Be Good for Teens,” Caroline Knorr discusses why social media is good for young people. Knorr argues that social media offers teens many positives. The positives noted in the article range from strengthening friendships to administering support for teenagers. Social media causes teens to compare themselves to others which leads to a decline in happiness and confidence. Rates of depression also positively correlated to someone’s social media use. From spending hours scrolling online, teens lose valuable time to be productive and learn new skills. Many teenagers also use their phones to procrastinate on homework or projects. With endless scrolling opportunities, teens are getting less and less sleep, which negatively affects their health and performance. The feeling of online friends can cause teens to become anti-social and isolated from people in their real life. Although the article “Five Ways Social Media Can Be Good for Teens,” was written by Caroline Knorr for The Washington Post discusses why social media is positive for teens, it is actually very harmful because it causes teens to compare themselves, decreases productivity, and causes depression.

Knorr argues that “[d]igital technology allows kids to share their work with a wider audience.” While this statement holds true in many regards, more often than not, teens are so afraid of judgment from people online that they don’t feel comfortable expressing themselves online. The comparison aspect of social media has drastically affected teens and greatly influenced their self-esteem. Many have lost their sense of self-worth and criticize themselves for even the smallest “imperfections.” An article, “Is Social Media Threatening Teens’ Mental Health and Well-being” by Columbia University Irving Medical Center, states that when teens scroll through social media, they tend to think, “I’m never going to be as good as these people.” With every newfound insecurity social media brings, less creativity is brought onto the platforms. Since many teens feel they will never be enough, very few actually use social media to express themselves artistically. If teens feel discouraged due to comparison, they will not reap any creative benefits from social media. 

According to “Five Ways Social Media Can Be Good for Teens” by The Washington Post, “[k]ids realize they have a voice they didn’t have before and are doing everything from crowdfunding social justice projects to anonymously tweeting positive thoughts.” Knorr argues that social media promotes teens to be better individuals by helping teens realize that they have a voice. Social media can promote crowdfunding and other charity projects. However, teens can do more than repost a picture for a cause they believe in. Teens could also be going out and doing things to make a difference. According to the Pew Research Center, almost 50% of teenagers say they are “online ‘almost constantly.” Imagine the difference these teens could make if they spent more of their time doing actual work to support the causes they cared about. Instead of reposting a picture as Knorr mentions, teens can have real impacts in their communities and volunteer locally. A study by the Common Sense Census that was included in an article by Social Buddy showed that “teens (ages 13-18) spent about 9 hours daily on entertainment media, including social media and entertainment media.” With how teens allocate their time, they won’t have much time for grassroots work in their communities. For teens, dedicating time to volunteer locally will help them make significant changes in their communities.  

In Knorr’s article “Five Ways Social Media Can Be Good for Teens,” she argues that teens are “feeling less isolated and have become more socially adept.” due to social media. Knorr highlights that teens are now feeling more included because they can communicate via social media apps. While teens use social media to communicate with others, the suicide rate that correlates with social media use proves that most social platforms aren’t positive platforms. The article “Does Social Media Cause Depression” by the Child Mind Institute states that “half a million eighth through 12th graders found that the number exhibiting high levels of depressive symptoms increased by 33 percent between 2010 and 2015.” The increase in depressive symptoms correlates with the years social media became more prominent. According to the Pew Research Center, social media users have increased by 65 percent. It’s no coincidence that the increasing rate of social media users correlates to the increasing depressive symptoms. The Child Mind Institute also quotes that from 2010-2015, “the suicide rate for girls in that age group increased by 65 percent”. These statistics show that despite the 24-hr conversations social media can facilitate, an overwhelming number of teens have gotten depressed from the usage of these apps. Even though social media offers teens access to hotlines, it is still contributing heavily to the mental health decline shown in teens. The fact that suicide rates increased drastically among youth during the period where social media began taking off shows that the usage of these apps could potentially be deadly.

While Knorr stated valid points on how social media can be good for teens, it’s clear that social media is dangerous for teens because it encourages comparison, impacts productivity, and is linked to depression. Constant scrolling through social media manifests in teenagers’ growing insecurity and their feeling of not being enough. School and other things are also put on the backburner due to social media. Teens spend hours a day mindlessly scrolling on different platforms when they could be doing other things. Many studies have also found that depression is heavily connected to social media use. Suicide rates have risen as more and more teens gain access to social media. By learning about how social media can affect teens, we can all be more mindful of how we spend our time and how we are affected by our mindless scrolling. 

This blog post is part of the CIMA law group blog. If you are located in Arizona and are seeking legal services, CIMA law group specializes in Immigration law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations.