130 Years Ago Today: Statue Of Liberty Arrives In New York Harbor

Statue of Liberty, Image courtesy of Wikipedia

Today marks the one hundred and thirtieth year since the Statue of Liberty – the most iconic landmark representing freedom and democracy in the world – first arrived in New York Harbor. Sculpted by Frederic Auguste Bartholdi, who conceived the idea in 1870, “Lady Liberty” was originally intended as a gift from the people of France to celebrate America’s 100th birthday.

Frederic Auguste Bartholdi

When 1876 rolled around, however, the Statue was not finished.  In fact, Bartholdi would not complete her until 1884, with some engineering assistance from Gustave Eiffel (the maker of the Eiffel Tower) who designed her internal structure. Bartholdi entitled his work, “Liberty Enlightening the World” (French, La Liberté éclairant le monde).  To most, however, she is now referred to simply as “the Statue of Liberty,” “Lady Liberty,” or even just “the Statue.”

To commemorate this 130-year anniversary, a number of Internet sources are featuring articles about the Statute of Liberty, many with stunning photographs of the landmark. Time’s online magazine, for example, has a marvelous set of photographs today, featuring 14 images taken from various vantage points and at various times.

Below are a couple of examples from the Time article.  The full set of photographs is truly worth viewing.

Statue of Liberty 1931

Statue of Liberty Unknown Date

The Statue of Liberty was also designated as a UNESCO World Heritage monument in 1984.  Many additional photographs of the Statue, like the one below, can be found at the UNESCO site.

Statue of Liberty UNESCO World Heritage Monument

Fun Facts About The Statue Of Liberty

How good is your Statue of Liberty knowledge?  Here are 10 fun facts about the Statue, which you may not know:

1. The robed, female figure represents Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom;
2. She holds a torch in her right hand; in her left hand, she holds a tablet which is inscribed with the date July 4, 1776, the date of the American Declaration of Independence;
3. Approximately 4 million people visit the Statue each year, climbing 354 stairs to reach the Statue’s crown;
4. There are 7 spikes on the crown, representing the 7 continents.  This symbolizes the universal nature of liberty;
5. The external surface of the Statue is made from copper, which required the use of 300 different types of hammers to complete;
6. The cost of the Statue was funded by contributions in both France and America.  In America, the vast majority of contributions were in sums less than one dollar;
7. The total cost of building the Statue and its pedestal amounted to over $500,000, the equivalent of more than $10 million today;
8. In 1916, the Statue sustained damage to the torch-bearing arm due to a bomb exploded by World War I German saboteurs.  This explosion resulted in the closure of the stairs to the torch, which have remained closed ever since;
9. The Statue was also closed temporarily as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 and again in 2012 as a result of the effects of Hurricane Sandy.  The Statue was reopened on July 4, 2013;
10. The famous poem associated with the Statue, entitled “The New Colossus,” was written by Emma Lazarus in 1883.  According to Wikipedia, the poem was written to raise money for the construction of the Statue’s pedestal.  The poem was engraved on a bronze plaque inside the pedestal’s lower level in 1903, and contains the well-known phrase, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”

On this 130-year anniversary, take some time to re-acquaint yourself with America’s greatest civil rights landmark, the Statue of Liberty.

Statue of Liberty Against New York Skyline

Related articles

• Statue of Liberty arrived in U.S. 130 years ago
• June 17, 1885: Statue of Liberty arrives in New York Harbor
• See vintage photos of the Statue of Liberty, 130 years after it arrived in the U.S.
• Statue of Liberty through the years

New Louisiana Law Would Force Brain Dead, Pregnant Women To Remain On Life Support

Recently, and by an overwhelming majority, the Louisiana Legislature passed one of the most invasive anti-choice bills imaginable,  HB 1274.  The bill would require physicians and hospitals to keep brain dead, pregnant women on life support in order to keep their unborn fetus alive.

The proposed new law would apply even if remaining on life support is against the stated wishes of the woman or her immediate family.  The only time the law would not apply is if the incapacitated woman has a will in which she specifically and explicitly wrote that she does not wish to be resuscitated if incapacitated and pregnant – or – if the fetus is under 20 weeks old.

Ilyse Hogue, President of the NARAL Pro-Choice America, told MSNBC:

“Laws like this show the sinister underlying belief that anti-choice politicians hold – that women’s sole purpose is to have children, and once we are pregnant, our rights to make our own decisions fly right out the window regardless of what we think, our families think, and what medical experts think.”

Another article noted that HB 1274 would “codify the legal nightmare scenario that faced the Texas family of Marlise Munoz earlier this year.”  Munoz collapsed after suffering from either a blood clot or pulmonary embolism. She was declared legally dead two days later.  However, when her husband and grieving family asked to remove her from life support and allow her to die a natural death, the hospital refused because Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant at the time.  Even more shocking, the hospital refused to withdraw life support even after an ultrasound established that the fetus was severely deformed and fluid had built up in its brain.  

In the Munoz case, the grieving family was forced to file a lawsuit against the Texas hospital.  A judge subsequently ruled that the hospital had to respect the family’s wishes and ordered withdrawal of life support.

Louisiana’s HB 1274 is now in the hands of Governor Bobby Jindal.  All signs suggest that he will sign this restrictive bill into law.  If he does, this is yet another example of the political right invading women’s privacy protections and the rights of their immediate families.  HB 1274 is a CIVIL WRONG.

Related articles

• La. Governor Considers Bill Requiring Life Support for Pregnant Brain Dead Women
• Judge orders brain-dead pregnant woman off life support
• Texas hospital removes brain-dead pregnant woman from life support
• Texas judge orders brain-dead pregnant woman off life support
• Jindal Mulls Mandatory Life Support For Brain-Dead Pregnant Women

Supreme Court Strikes Down Calif. Video Game Law

Reprinted from my blog, Cyber-Esq.  The full Supreme Court opinion is in the Box under “Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Video Game Case:”

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 7-2 opinion, that a 2005 California law aimed at banning the sale of violent video games to children went too far.  Created by California state Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), the law imposed a fine of up to $1,000 on retailers found to be in violation.  However, because of the litigation, the law never went into effect.

This is the highest-level decision to date on the subject of legal restrictions on violent video games.  In the wake of the Court’s decision, one thing is now clear – video games are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as books, plays and movies.  Moreover, the Court emphasized that First Amendment protections are subject only to historically limited categories of speech such as obscenity, incitement or fighting words.  These protections do not wane with the advent of new technologies.  As a result, the state – as California did – cannot create a wholly new category of speech that is unlawful unless it can meet the “strict scrutiny” test; i.e., justify its law with a “compelling state interest.”

On the question of “strict scrutiny,” the Court found that California failed to meet its burden.  Of specific interest, the Court doubted the strength of psychological evidence that claims such games cause children to behave violently or aggressively, at least more than any other available media.  In addition, the Court found that the voluntary rating system – known as the Entertainment Software Ratings Board‘s (ESRB) classification system – already achieved the needs of parents without the government enacting legislation that infringes on free speech.

According to an article in ZDNet:

“the majority of video game resellers in the United States – including major retailers like GameStop and Best Buy – support the use of the…(ESRB) classification system, which rates games based on content and applies an age rating, which is featured on the video game box. It’s a purely voluntary system modeled after the Motion Picture Association of America’s ratings for movies.”

What do you think of the Court’s decision?  In particular, the Court mentioned the fact that California had not limited access to “Saturday morning cartoons” in support of its decision, indicating that this raised the possibility that the state was singling out a particular industry or speaker for sanction.  Is this a defensible analogy to violent video games?

 

Wisconsin Republicans Strip Workers’ Rights Without Open Meeting

Unless you have spent the last few weeks on Mars, or simply have no interest in the fact that democracy in the United States in under attack from extreme right-wing interests in many states, then you probably have heard something about the anti-democratic events unfolding in Wisconsin.  Right-wing governor, Scott Walker, in office less than a year, is attempting to completely abolish the collective bargaining rights of Wisconsin’s public workers, including teachers.  The anti-union measures were part of a larger budget bill being considered by the Wisconsin Legislature.

In response to Walker’s efforts, the state’s 14 Democratic lawmakers fled to neighboring Illinois, thereby defeating the Legislature’s quorum.  Last night, however, the Republic majority voted to separate the issue of workers’ rights from the larger budget bill.  By invoking this rare procedural move, the Republicans, effectively, gave to themselves the right to proceed with a smaller quorum than was required to consider a budget bill.

More significantly, the vote took place without any public debate, which Wisconsin Democrats argue violates the state’s “open meeting laws.” For those of you interested in the specific issue of “open meeting laws” and “freedom of information” in the United States, a good starting point in your research would be this excellent Wikipedia article.

This morning, in response to the events, Governor Walker issued an interesting statement, saying in part:  “We cannot balance a budget on a hope and a prayer…”

What an interesting statement.  When Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords nearly lost her life to a gunman’s bullet, right-wing radicals in this country – coming to the defense of Sarah Palin and the NRA‘s pro-gun stance – told us we should simply “pray” for a solution rather than look for secular solutions like gun control.  Prayer, apparently, was all we needed to magically undo the tragic – and avoidable – events that befell Giffords and others.

Now, another right-wing extremist, Gov. Walker, tells us that prayer is not enough to simply correct a balance sheet.  How convenient!  Of course, he is correct.  Prayer won’t do the trick.  Unfortunately, what he isn’t mentioning is that he and his cronies all across the Nation refuse to ask the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share.

When are the People going to wake up?  If you are really hungry – even starving – what do you do?  You go to where the food is, be it a grocery store or a restaurant.  You don’t go to the dry cleaner down the street and ask them to give you food.  You don’t go to your kids’ third grade teacher and make her quench your thirst.  You go to where the food is!

Why do we not insist that our leaders to where the money is – the banks, the lending houses, the defense contractors, international mega-corps.?  What are we waiting for?  An Act of God?!?!?

Maybe we should just pray that the rich will pony up the funds on their own.  How’s that been working out so far?

Related articles

• Wisconsin Republicans have Stripped Collective Bargaining Without the Democrats (democraticsocialistrepublic.wordpress.com)
• Wisconsin Passes Anti-Collective Bargaining Bill (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Wisconsin Senate strips state workers of union rights (capitolhillblue.com)

All Progressive Roads Lead To Illinois? Illinois Bans Death Penalty

 

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn

Illinois is not precisely dead-center on a map of the United States, but it certainly forms part of what we Americans typically refer to as the Nation’s “Heartland.”  Bordered by Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa and Wisconsin, Illinois – quite literally these days – forms a bastion of progressive ideals amidst a sea of conservatism.  So, do all progressive roads lead to Illinois?

 

For example, if you have been following at all the political debacle taking place in Wisconsin, then you probably know that Wisconsin’s 14 Democratic state lawmakers recently fled to Illinois in protest over Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker’s, attempt to end the collective bargaining rights of public employees in that state.  The exodus by these lawmakers has effectively shut down Walker’s efforts by denying the Wisconsin Legislature a quorum, a move that is being hailed by progressives across the country.

Did you also happen to know that a similar exodus took place involving Indiana state lawmakers?  In late February, as events in Wisconsin unfolded, a similar fight was brewing in the Hoosier State.  There, over three dozen of Indiana’s Democratic lawmakers took to the broad, well-kept interstates that lead one into the Land of Lincoln.

As a New York Times article put it, “Illinois [has] suddenly found itself as the refuge of choice for outnumbered Democrats fleeing their states to block the passage of such bills.”  In truth, Illinois has a long and proud tradition of progressive politics.

Obama Launches Presidential Bid At Illinois State Capital

U.S. Sen. Paul Simon, courtesy of Illinois Public Media

Though it is  the birthplace of Ronald Reagan, Illinois is also the state from which President Obama catapulted to national attention as a U.S. Senator.

Prior to Obama, Illinois was well-known as the home state of liberal U.S. Senator Paul Simon, pictured to the right.  Simon unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination for President in 1988.

On a personal note, this writer is proud to say that I was an Intern Staff Assistant for Senator Simon in 1988.  Even now, I continue to revere Simon for his profound honesty, sense of purpose and overwhelming decency.

Simon was the kind of leader who believed it was wrong – morally and politically – for an elderly person, who had lived and worked all their life, to not be able to afford medical care.  He told you his beliefs, and he voted his beliefs.

Of course, Illinois also produced President Abraham Lincoln.  While Lincoln may have been a “Republican,” we should get real about his political leanings, people.  Lincoln would not be caught  in the same room as some of these modern-day, neo-fascists. Lincoln lived by a motto that included, “With malice towards none, with charity for all.”  Those are not the words of modern-day Republicans that hand out enormous financial breaks to the wealthiest, while fomenting discord to advance their regressive policies.

This writer is proud also to remark that my home state is continuing its progressive tradition.  Today, Illinois’ Democratic governor, Pat Quinn, outlawed the death penalty.  In a surprising show of bi-partisanship, Illinois’ death penalty was first called into serious question over a decade ago by former Republican Governor George Ryan.  Ryan declared a moratorium on executions after 13 condemned inmates were cleared of the charges that led to their imprisonment on Illinois’ death row.

Quinn’s order takes effect on July 1.  However, the governor’s order immediately clears death row, so no executions can take place in Illinois.

Related articles

• Illinois Death Penalty Abolished? Pat Quinn Plans To Sign Bill, Lawmaker Says (huffingtonpost.com)
• Lawmakers: Illinois to abolish death penalty (msnbc.msn.com)
• Lawmakers: Ill. governor to abolish death penalty (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

The Dangerous Workings Of Sarah Palin

If you want to hear the real sound of “100% wacko,” then just listen to Sarah Palin.

In the wake of the shooting of Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, many around the country blame Palin’s “incitement to violence”-style rhetoric and imagery which includes, among other techniques, use of the now-infamous “cross hairs” map that – rather literally – targets Democratic leaders.  The “cross hairs” map is pictured below:

At the time of writing this article, the “cross-hairs” map was still publicly posted on Palin’s Facebook page.  Furthermore, in response to criticism, Palin says that she (and her cronies) are being unjustly blamed for the attack; it is their right to free speech that is being trampled.

In other words – just in case you missed it – Palin is the real victim here.  It is not Congresswoman Giffords whom Palin targeted with her map and other violent-provoking rhetoric.  No way.  It is not the federal judge killed by the gunman.  Uh-uh. It is not even the 5 others that were killed in the shooting, including a 9 year-old girl who just happened to have been born on 9/11/2001.

Nope, Sister Sarah is the victim here – she, her cronies, and, well, I suppose the First Amendment.  You remember the good-ole No. 1, don’t you?  It is part of that pesky document called the Constitution that so many dangerous, half-crazed, ne0-con zealots can never seem to stomach – until it becomes useful to wrap themselves up in it for protection and justification.

Here’s a news bulletin for Sister Sarah – you can put lipstick on a pig, but in the end, you still got a pig.  And, in this case, a rather dangerous pig.  In this case, we have a pig willing to use this tragic event to transform herself into some kind of victim or martyr; or, at the very least,  Constitutional champion.  In so doing, Palin is revealing either a profound degree of psychological disturbance, or she is demonstrating her willingness to stoop deep to promote her own domination agenda.  Maybe both.

Also shocking are those that have publicly defended Palin.  For example, Barbara Walters feels Sister Sarah’s pain, saying that it is unfair to blame her for the shooting.  Although I normally regard Walters higher than most, not on this occasion.  As Lynn M. Paltrow noted in her “Open Letter to Sarah Palin,” Congresswoman Giffords – in particular – criticized Palin’s methods, including the “cross hairs” map.  What a coincidence, eh Babs?!?!

Walters is, of course, known for her own brand of “in your face” journalism.  However, as she should know, speech that promotes the public good by encouraging debate or controversy – even spirited or agitated – is not the same thing as the self-indulgent calculations of a demagogue trolling her cult of personality for violence with military-style words and imagery.  For example, evidence continues to mount suggesting that Palin’s racists comments aimed at President Obama has led to death threats against the President.

If Sarah Palin’s brand of “speech” is protected, then we ought to start now and re-write every Constitutional law textbook so that they feature the likes of Charles Manson and Jim Jones alongside Constitutional champions like Mary Beth Tinker (pictured below), Clarence Earl Gideon and Rosa Parks.  Hyperbole, you say?  Sarah Palin is nothing like Jim Jones?  How would we know that – until it is too late?

What if we suddenly learned that Sarah Palin had direct ties to a terrorist organization whose mission is to cause anarchy and civil unrest in the U.S. to destroy democracy?  What is the gunman in this case had ties to the same organization?  Suddenly, it might seem as though Palin’s comments were something less akin to pure free speech and something strikingly closer to conspiracy.

Even if Palin’s “speech” is protected, let us not dignify that which does not deserve dignity.   A lot of very undignified “speech” is legally protected by our Constitution, whether we like it or not.  That does not mean dignified citizens should go out of their way to be cheerleaders.

Mary Beth Tinker talks to students at Cardozo High about their constitutional rights. In eighth grade, Tinker was suspended for wearing a black armband, inspiring a Supreme Court case that upheld students' freedom of expression. (By James A. Parcell -- The Washington Post)

Related articles

• Deconstructing Sarah Palin: Levi Was Right (themoderatevoice.com)
• Pawlenty criticizes Palin for cross hairs imagery – USA Today (news.google.com)
• Cross hairs: Crossroads for Palin? – Washington Post (news.google.com)

Scalia To Women: Corporations Have Rights, Not You

Image via Wikipedia

Just how ridiculously narrow-minded and oppressive will U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia get?  It boggles the mind when you consider his latest rant.

In an interview with the online publication “California Lawyer” this past week, Scalia declared that the 14th Amendment does not protect gays or women from discrimination.

Scalia stated:

Q. In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

A. Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.

If I understand the good Justice, taking into consideration his opinion in the recent Citizens United case, corporations have constitutional rights but women and other minorities are free game for discrimination, at least as far as the 14th Amendment goes.   Do you find it astounding that a jurist sitting on the Nation’s Court of Last Resort thinks that AT&T or Halliburton or BP has more rights than your mom does or your sister?  I do.

We all need to think very seriously about Justice Scalia’s comments.  Think about them in the context of this quote which I am re-printing from an excellent article in U.S. News’ Politics blog:

“…laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Related articles

• Justice Scalia’s accidental argument for equal rights (dailykos.com)
• Supreme Court’s Scalia Says Discrimination Is Constitutional (usnews.com)
• Justice Scalia’s Warped Idea of Personhood: Not Women, But Corporations? (crooksandliars.com)

Civil Rights History: On This Day, Harvey Milk’s Killer Avoids Murder Charge Using “Twinkie Defense”

For the lesbian and gay communities, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area, today marks a day in civil rights history which sparked great protests known as the “White Night Riots.” On May 21, 1979, former San Francisco City Supervisor Dan White was convicted of manslaughter for the premeditated murders of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone.

In 1977, Harvey Milk, a prominent, gay businessman in the Castro District of San Francisco, won election to the city’s Board of Supervisors.  Milk’s election was the first time an openly-gay candidate won an office in the State of California.  Milk is pictured below in a photo taken in 1978 and courtesy of Wikipedia.

Alongside Milk served Dan White.  White was a conservative veteran and former fireman.  The relationship between the two officials was, at best, stormy.  The relationship began to sour further when White voted against a gay-rights ordinance sponsored by Milk.  The gay-rights ordinance did pass, however, despite White’s vote.

In November 1978, White resigned from the S.F. Board of Supervisors, claiming that he could not support his family on his salary.  George Moscone, the Mayor of San Francisco at the time, told White that he would reappoint him to the Board if White chose to come back.  Mayor Moscone is pictured below courtesy of Google Images.

Shortly after resigning, White did change his mind.  However, for reasons that are not entirely clear, Moscone did not reappoint White.  One argument that is proposed is that Moscone was under pressure from Milk not to reappoint White because of White’s no vote on Milk’s gay-rights ordinance.

On November 27, 1978, the day after Moscone’s refusal to reappoint him, White armed himself with a loaded pistol and went to City Hall.  He gained access to the building by entering a window in order to avoid a weapons check.  White then walked into Moscone’s office and shot the Mayor four times.  He then walked down the hall to Milk’s office, shooting Milk five times.  One gun shot was point-blank to the head and is depicted graphically in the 2008 movie, “Milk,” starring Sean Penn.

At White’s subsequent criminal trial, the defense argued that White had diminished capacity and, thus, could not have premeditated the killings.  The evidence offered for White’s depression was that he had been eating excessive amounts of junk food.  Seizing on this evidence, the media dubbed White’s defense, the “Twinkie defense.”  As a result of this defense, White escaped a murder conviction and was, instead, convicted of manslaughter.  He was sentenced to a mere five years, serving only two of them before returning to San Francisco and committing suicide.  White has been referred to as the “most hated man in San Francisco history.”

In 1982, under Proposition 8, and as a result of the negative publicity surrounding White’s case and others, the “diminished capacity” defense was abolished in the State of California.

Wikipedia has excellent articles about Harvey Milk, George Moscone, Dan White, and the “Twinkie defense.” If you are interested in this topic, I encourage you to check out those articles as a next step.  If you have not yet seen the movie “Milk,” then I most strongly encourage you to see it.  Sean Penn‘s portrayal of Harvey Milk, as well as Josh Brolin’s portrayal of the troubled Dan White, is a must see.  A word of warning, however – I personally found the end scene, the assassination of Milk quite haunting even though, from a graphics viewpoint, the scene is definitely not your typical Hollywood scene.  It is, in some ways, all the more powerful and disturbing because of that fact.

R.I.P. Harvey (May 22, 1930 – November 27, 1978).  We have not forgotten, and never will.

Mentally Ill Jailed More Often Than Hospitalized

As some of you may know, May is Mental Health Month.  If you are interested in mental health issues, you may want to check out this excellent resource, Mental Health America.  I will be adding them to the “Resources for Disabled Persons” page as well.  What I did not know until I reviewed the Mental Health America website is that May has been Mental Health Month since 1949.

I find that fact astonishing considering that bias (or, at best, discomfort with) mental health issues forced Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton from the 1972 Democratic Presidential ticket alongside, George McGovern.  The fact that May has been Mental Health Month since 1949 also calls into question a shocking report from USA Today, released earlier this month.  You can link to the USA Today article here.

According to the article, a seriously mentally ill person in the USA is three times more likely to be incarcerated than hospitalized.  Furthermore, in no state was a seriously mentally ill person — someone with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, for example — less likely to be incarcerated than hospitalized.  States that stood out at opposite ends of the spectrum, however, were North Dakota and Nevada.  In North Dakota, a mentally ill person was, at least, equally likely to be hospitalized as incarcerated.  In Nevada, however, a mentally ill person was 10 times more likely to be incarcerated than hospitalized.

Before any readers jump to the conclusion that this article is just one more piece of liberal dribble – these statistics were based on a report prepared by the National Sheriff’s Association, hardly a bastion of wild liberalism, and the Treatment Advocacy Center.  Kudos to the Sheriff’s Association for participating in this study.  In my opinion, it is incredibly important to see law enforcement taking a leading role in getting this kind of information out to the public because, unfortunately, law enforcement in many areas often lacks adequate training to appropriately deal with the mentally ill.  As a result, these citizens’ frequently find themselves abused, mis-used, wrongly incarcerated, and their conditions severely exacerbated.

My personal thanks to National Alliance on Mental Illness for circulating the USA Today article on LinkedIn.  For more information on the subject of mental health generally, please check out the website at National Institute of Mental Health.

Jury Hits Pharma Giant Novartis With Sex Discrimination Verdict

Breaking News from NYC:

A NYC jury has rendered a verdict against pharmaceutical giant, Novartis, finding that the company had engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against women.  In particular, the jury found that the company paid women less than men and treated pregnant women unfavorably.  You can link to an article from ABC News here, discussing the case.

Second Sex Discrimination Verdict Against Novartis:

This verdict is the second sex discrimination verdict the company has suffered in the last few months.  In early March, a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rendered a verdict in favor of pharmaceutical sales representative Mary Kate Breeden against Novartis, awarding her $289,669on on a claim of retaliation for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).