Get help from the best in academic writing.

Congresswoman Donna F. Edwards Research Paper

Table of Contents Introduction

Background Information

Issues Proposed

Health Care System

Education

Conclusion

Works Cited

Introduction A few women join the congress in US; however, Donna Edwards constitute such few persons. Born in North Carolina, she attained elevated levels of education. Consequently, she defined her career, which focuses on enlightening the public about their rights. She fought in the quest for rights, as evident in her actions in countries like Sudan.

It is imperative to assert that Donna launched her political career in 2006 thus overthrowing Wynn as evident in 2008. She has reformed the healthcare system in Maryland, thus enhancing the state of women (Edwards). She equally strives to reform the education sector by initiating superior programmes that aim at offering competent graduates.

Background Information Donna F. Edwards was born in 1958 in North Carolina, and had six siblings. Her father was a member of the Air Force throughout the warfare in Vietnam. It is significant to note that Donna was among the few women academics during that time.

This is factual since she completed her first degree at the Wake Forest University where she was among the few colour women present in her class. Later on, she proceeded to study a degree in law at the Franklin Pierce Law Centre (AFN). Donna has since involved in diversified careers mostly working for non-profit oriented organizations.

For instance, prior to her congress job, she was an executive director in Arca foundation where she helped champion the need for ending capital punishment, promote labour and human rights, as well as ensuring independence of the judiciary.

Furthermore, she was involved in the effort of concluding domestic violence in America. It is remarkable that Donna involved herself in the demonstration against genocide in Darfur, outer surface of the Sudan Embassy where they were protesting against the refusal to offer humanitarian aid to the victims.

During that remonstration, she was arrested after breaching police orders of maintaining a line, which was meant to protect the embassy (Bartlett).

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Her first political conquest was in 2006 where she contested in the democratic primary for the Maryland seat. She lost by a thin margin to Wynn but that did end her desire to represent Maryland. In July 2008, Donna Edwards again declared that she would face off with Albert Wynn for the Maryland seat.

She criticised Wynn regarding frequent support on republican proposals, for instance 2002 vote that was in support of Iraq invasion by the United States.

She claimed that the bush administration was not sensitive to the wishes of Americans and with this notion as the campaign slogan; she began her onslaught on Wynn. She embarked on an effective low profile campaign based on her connections with local groupings.

Despite the fact that her rival managed to spend excessive money on his campaign, she managed to defeat Wynn on the 2008 January primary achieving a decisive 22% points. On his defeat, Wynn opted to resign rather than finish his period of office. This gave way to a special election in which she received weak competition from her republican opponent.

She comfortably won the election by gaining 81% of the total votes (AFN). The officials swore her in to serve the remaining term of Wynn. In November 2008, she contested for a full term in the United States 2008 elections where she defeated the democratic candidate, Peter James, by gaining 85% of the total votes.

Issues Proposed Education and healthcare form backbone of the society and adequate tackling of these issues would mean a better US. It is notable that education system has since diminished in the contemporary America, and other overseas nations are surpassing the home standards.

Healthcare is another important element of the society that the congressperson should present to the senate for discussion and subsequent passage of laws. The existing healthcare scheme is not addressing the health concerns of the current populace. Striking matters include the cover by the insurance firms, as well as women’s health.

We will write a custom Research Paper on Congresswoman Donna F. Edwards specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Health Care System Donna has shown commendable work in health care system in the US. She has influenced moderates’ efforts to make sure that the health care legislation is more progressive. It is important to note that Donna has strongly advocated for the enactment of a health care scheme that would help in tackling issues of racial inequalities.

For instance, she advocated for a government sponsored medical care that would help in providing health care to individuals despite of their social and fiscal status. The desire to amend a broken health care system, which was only dominated by insurance companies’ profits, was one of her major inspiration to run for the congress seat in Maryland.

Her contribution to the health care legislation targeted checking the ever-rising insurance deductions (Edwards). She determined to offer a better, accessible and a cheaper healthcare for the millions of American who are not capable of accessing services due to their financial constraints and disparities.

Some of the contributions she made in the legislation included the ability of parents to insure their children up to the age of twenty six years, prohibiting insurance company from stopping offering insurance cover once someone gets sick, offering tax exemptions to the small businesses with the aim of making them afford insurance cover among others.

She claims that the health care system does not take care of the various problems relating to women. An example of the many problems that face women is domestic violence. Insurance companies deny many women suffering from domestic brutality coverage.

They cite that such violence is considered therapeutic condition that has already been existing; therefore, it is not viable for coverage (Edwards). Other problems facing this bias include pregnancy and caesarean section. It is her belief that the continued discrimination on these problems would turn many women live without medical cover.

To examine this discrimination tendency of insurance firms, she further claims that majority of black women lack access to the basic primary healthiness care.

This has also brought in the notion that the minority, who include the people of colour, have difficulty in accessing the basic health care. Statistics from the Office of the Minority show that African American women together with other females of colour are likely to die from cancer in comparison to their native counterpart.

Not sure if you can write a paper on Congresswoman Donna F. Edwards by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More This is factual as they lack easy admission to the required diagnosis facilities and treatment of cancer (Edwards). This leads to the increase of cost of medical treatment in the end and sometimes may result into the death of the infected.

Further research by the “Joint Centre for Political and Economic studies” shows that the cost of health inequalities and premature death totalled $1.2 trillion, and further advised that eliminating such disparities would help reduce the medical expenditure of this same group.

This is the same reason as to why she is advocating for a reformed health care to expand the access to basic care and reduce the deduction of preventive care.

According to her, the elimination of these inequalities and discriminatory insurance practices that affect minorities and women is cost effective and is the right direction.

In order to achieve this, a combination of cover reforms that would hold cover companies answerable and strong health indemnity meant for the citizens that would provide the required competition, which will lead to the reduction of cost of medical care.

The public insurance option will be able to provide the middle class and the working family with a wide range of choices and benefits that would include preventive care and long-term medical care. The public insurance option should be attached to a medical doctor and this would make the patients and doctors in full control instead of leaving it to the exploiting insurance companies.

Education Education is the most crucial aspect of ensuring the long-term success of every child. Her priority is to guarantee that all the children have admittance to quality education from nursery to high school. Furthermore, she strives to improve “science and technology sector and mathematics curricula, and increasing the chances of students to join college and vocational schools”.

Her continued drive to improve the education system in Maryland has made the state offer worthy education system and, the award that was given to Maryland in 2011 in recognition of its public education system confirmed this.

Her stand on education is the availability and access by everyone despite the differences in race, ethnic or financial status (CDFE). She recognises that education is the fundamental element for ascertaining that children can be successful in this world.

It is crucial to declare that Donna has commenced some school programmes in Maryland that aim at strengthening the education system. She introduced the after- school meal program whereby she campaigned for funds to help in the provision of free lunch and dinner to students who take part in the after school programmes.

Her view is that most children are not able to afford nutritious meals because of the financial restraints experienced by their parents. Through this, the students would have little distraction in their learning process as this would aid in their acquisition of good health, development and increase their ability to learn hence improving the quality of education.

Student aid would enable the have-nots counter financial constraints that limit their access to education. This aims at ensuring the minority races in America have chance to schooling. The student aid act would provide education to significant proportions of Americans who are not able to pay for edification. It is believable that this would be the highest investment programme in college aid history.

It reforms the federal student loan system whereby it ensures grants are available to students, as well as finance to the community colleges to help in the development of their career training programmes. This would ensure that Maryland train skilled graduates who are able to offer an effective workforce that compete fairly in the global marketplace (CDFE).

By making significant investments to improve the basic research, science and technology, and foster innovation, The Completes Reauthorization Act would help in the creation of jobs opportunities in America (CDFE). Furthermore, it should augment innovation capabilities and strengthen America’s scientific and fiscal headship for many years.

Through this Act, she was able to campaign for the less represented minorities and teachers to ensure that they receive special consideration when it came to awarding grants. To her, this Act would go a long way in ensuring that education is available to all students regardless of their social status or financial background.

Conclusion It is certain that Donna Edwards has played some pivotal roles in the lives of several Americans and others. Her education status, coupled with champion for human rights have helped her rising to the seat of congressional representative of Maryland. Donna has made remarkable steps in streamlining the healthcare and education systems of her state.

Works Cited AFN. America’s Future Now! 2010 Speaker Biographies. (ND). Web.

Bartlett, Anne. Rep. Donna Edwards Arrested in Darfur Protest. The Washington Post. April 27, 2009. Web.

CDFE. Congresswoman Edwards Applauds Investments in Education With Race to the Top Competition. CDFE. November 17, 2009. Web.

Edwards, Donna. Health Care Reform: What’s in it for Women? The Washington informer. October 22, 2009. Web.

Gay Marriage Legalization Research Paper

Nursing Assignment Help Table of Contents Introduction

A case for Gay Marriages

Objections and Counterarguments

Conclusion

Works Cited

Introduction While marriage has traditionally been prescribed as a union between heterosexuals, there has been a shift towards giving marriage rights to homosexual couples. This change has been brought about by the prevalence of homosexuality in the society and the widespread acceptance of gay relationships.

While until recently homosexuality was looked upon as vile and even criminalized by some governments, the 1960s saw a change in trend that saw many states making laws that decriminalized same-sex conduct and abolished discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Volokh 106).

Riding on this momentum, gay activists all over the country have been calling for the legalizing of gay marriages all through the country. This legalization would ensure that gay couples were afforded the same rights and benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.

Despite this advocacy, the ultimate goal of gay marriages legalization remains unachieved. This paper will set out to argue that gay marriages should be legalized. The paper shall outline various arguments to demonstrate that same-sex marriages should be legitimized. The major oppositions presented by anti-gay right activists will also be highlighted to give a balanced view on the topic.

A case for Gay Marriages The denial of marriage rights to the gay hinders their mental health and well-being. The American Psychological Association has issued statements that demonstrate that harmful mental health effects result from the discrimination that lesbians and gay men face (Herdt and Kertzner 11).

This is a notion that is corroborated by Culhane who states that marriage would result in reduction in the stress associated with the social exclusion and legal uncertainty that same-sex couples currently face (491).

As it currently stands, gay couples lack the social support system to help cope with the stress that comes about from the discrimination that they face. Legalizing gay marriages would reverse this situation therefore improving the wellbeing of the gay community.

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More A research on the effects of civil partnership status in Great Britain demonstrated that the partnerships resulted in better health outcomes for the couples inasmuch as stable same-sex relationships lead to better health (Culhane 491).

Marriage is a benefit not only to the two people being joined by the union but to the society as well. This is true for both heterosexual and same-sex couple marriages. By refusing to recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriages, the individual as well as the society is affected.

Giving same-sex couples same marriage rights as heterosexual couples would enjoy them to enjoy the benefits that are inherent in the marriage institute (Peplau and Fingerhut 407). In particular, same-sex couples would benefit greatly from the income and wealth benefits that are realized from marriage since marital status enjoys substantial legal and financial privileges.

The lack of legal recognition of gay marriages as a denial of the gay person’s right to enjoy a fulfilling life with his/her partner. This is because marriage is an institute that is fundamentally built on love and the need for companionship by the two parties involved.

Research by Peplau and Fingerhut on love and satisfaction in same-sex relationships found that there were striking similarities in the reports of love and satisfaction between same-sex and heterosexual couples. Gay activists suggest that the only difference between same sex and opposite-sex couples is the procreation ability of opposite-sex couples.

Since procreation is never the basis of legal marriage, gays should not be denied marriage since they union is not unlike that of heterosexual couples. Culhane states that the marital status would reduce the outsider status currently given to gay couples therefore allowing them to enjoy the benefits that heterosexual couples accrue from marriage (491).

Past views about gay unions were based on the misconception that being gay is inherently evil and detrimental to the society. This traditional view has undergone radical changes ever as the society has evolved.

We will write a custom Research Paper on Gay Marriage Legalization specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Feldblum proposes that the world is changing significantly and as such, the principles which guide our society should also change towards a system whereby liberty for all is guaranteed (6).

Feldblum contends that since homosexuality has become acceptable and is not viewed as being harmful to the society’s moral fiber, gay people should be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals (10). To reinforce his assertion, he reveals that according to surveys only 40% of the people object to legal recognition for same-sex couple (11).

This is an important assertion since legal recognition of same sex marriages is mostly objected to on the basis that the general public is against such establishments. Duncan notes that there has been a clear change in public opinion related to sexual behavior and the law should reflect the reality of how people are living (647).

Refusing gay couples the right to marriage is tantamount to unjustified discrimination and as a nation founded on the grounds of democracy and equal rights for all, the United States of America should not engage in this discriminatory behavior.

While the government is adamant that it protects all citizens equally in spite of their sexual orientation, this is not the reality since gay couples continue to be deprived of right to live together in consensual relationships (Volokh 106).

Feldblum agrees with this view by observing that while the government purports to be neutral in the “gay marriage debate”, it in essence takes a stance on the moral question every time it fails to take action to ensure that gay people can life openly and safely from harassment.

The stigma that is attached to same-sex relationships has an adverse effect on the children of same-sex couples. Clarke reveals that there is discrimination against same-sex parents in schools where their homosexuality is perceived as a threat to the education of children (556).

This has a negative effect on both the parents and the children who are stigmatized as a result of their parent’s sexual orientation.

Not sure if you can write a paper on Gay Marriage Legalization by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The Massachusetts Supreme Court declared that exclusion from marriage affected the children of same-sex couples in that they were prevented from “enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized” (Culhane 492).

Legitimizing the same-sex unions through marriage would in essence lift this stigma therefore stopping the unnecessary suffering that children are forced to undergo by denying their parents the right to marry

Denial of the right to marriage by same-sex couples has resulted mostly from the religious undertones that surround the marriage institute.

The imposition of the religious definition of marriage on the larger society is what makes it difficult for many Americans to agree on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Wilson articulates that “opposition to homosexuality and gay rights is derived primarily from religious beliefs” (564).

This assertion is reinforced by statistics which indicate that the most commonly cited reason for opposing same-sex marriages is that it goes against one’s own religious beliefs. The Christian religion is especially vocal in its opposition to gay marriages and goes ahead to label homosexuality as “unnatural” and lesbian and gay parenting as sinful and a perversion of god’s plan for the human race.

From this perspective, protecting lesbian and gay rights is seen as undermining religion (Clarke 559). Religious beliefs should not drive public policy and as such, same-sex marriage should not be prohibited because it goes against the religious beliefs of certain people.

Wilson rightfully reveals that the Christian precept that one-man, one-woman marriage as “ordained by God” results in the superiority of heterosexual relationships and the subsequent inferior status of same-sex unions (565). This is wrong since the American constitution does not allow for any faith to impose its religious beliefs on others.

Objections and Counterarguments One of the objections raised by opponents of gay marriages is that recognizing these marriages would compromise the institute of marriage. To support this claim, opponents assert that gay rights advocate see gay marriage as a step towards the abolition of the marriage institute as they seek to reorder society’s view of the family.

Crawford goes so far as to claim that gay couples are only encouraged to marry so as to undermine the significance of the marriage institute in our society (244). While it is true that gay couples are encouraged to marry, the aim is not to undermine marriage but rather to reinforce the need for legalizing gay marriages.

The claim that gay activists are seeking to abolish the marriage institute is false since in reality, the gay community wants to be able to enjoy the privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy as a result of the marriage institute.

Duncan suggests that the ideal of marriage is “inextricably linked to the reality that men and women become mothers and fathers as a natural result of their relationship” (661).

Gay marriages would by extension endorse fatherless or motherless homes since the gay couples cannot have children in the natural way. In the event that the gay couple had children through some other means, the same-sex couple headed family would compromise the roles of father and mother.

The argument about role models is based on the assumption that lesbians and gay men have a faulty gender identity and therefore lack the ability to successfully rear their children. Research indicates that lesbians and gay men do not have any faulty gender identity and raise children in the same manner as their heterosexual counterparts.

Another issue raised by opponents of gay marriages is that it negatively affects children. This argument is best articulated by Clarke who states that according to critics of same-sex marriages, “Children in lesbian and gay families grow up gay and confused” (564).

According to this argument, being brought about by same-sex parents increases the likelihood that children will end up being gay or at least confused about their sexual identity.

Opponents who use this line of argument propose to be concerned about the welfare of children. This argument is based on the false premise that gay parents might produce gay children; or at least pressure their children into a same-sex sexual orientation.

The argument assumes that gay people actively seek children to recruit into their ranks. As a matter of fact, heterosexuality is the sexual identity that is actively imposed on children. Gay couples do not impose their values on their children and in the event that their children became gay, it should not be an issue unless the society is uncomfortable with the prospect of more gays.

In addition to this, research overwhelmingly indicates that gay and lesbian parents do not directly affect their children’s gender development and as such, there is little difference between the gender role behavior of children brought up by heterosexual and gay parents.

Conclusion In the past half century, gay relationships have moved from being perceived as inherently evil to wide acceptability. Even so, debate still rages about same-sex marriages and despite the increasing visibility of same-sex couples, marriage rights remain unattained for many.

This paper set out to demonstrate that legalizing gay marriages universally would result in great benefits to the individuals and society at large.

From this paper, it is clear that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage negatively affects their wellbeing as well as their mental health. This discrimination also results in the stigmatization that same-sex couples continue to face. The paper has also shown that arguments that suggest that gay parents may negatively affect their children’s development are flawed.

This paper has shown that the only difference between same sex and opposite-sex couples is the procreation ability of opposite-sex couples and this should never be grounds for discrimination. From this paper, it can be authoritatively stated that the denial of marriage rights for same-sex couples is unjustifiable and as such, the government should overturn this discriminative policy.

Works Cited Clarke, Victoria. “What about the children? Arguments against lesbian and gay parenting”. Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 555–570, 2001.

Crawford, David. Liberal Androgyny: “Gay Marriage” and the Meaning of Sexuality in our Time. Communio: International Catholic Review, 2006.

Culhane, John. Marriage equality? First, justify marriage (if you can). Drexel University Law Review, Vol. 1:485, 2009.

Duncan, William. The Litigation to Redefine Marriage: Equality and Social Meaning. Journal Of Public Law, Volume 18 pp. 623-663.

Feldblum, Chai, Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion. Jan 2006. Web.

Herdt, Gilbert and Kertzner, Robert. “I Do, but I Can’t: The Impact of Marriage Denial on the Mental Health and Sexual Citizenship of Lesbians and Gay Men in the United States; Sexuality Research and Social Policy”. Journal of NSRC, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp. 33-49.

Peplau, Letitia and Fingerhut, Adam. The Close Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58:405–24, 2007.

Volokh, Eugene. Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes. Hofstra Law Review, Vol 33. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf

Wilson, Justin. “Preservationism, or the elephant in the room: how opponents of same-sex marriage deceive us into establishing religion”. Duke Journal Of Gender Law

Essay Writing at Epic Essay Help

4.9 rating based on 10,037 ratings

Rated 4.9/5
10037 reviews

Review This Service




Rating: