We, the undersigned, ask that you read the following petition. Please take into consideration the very valid points offered below before taking action against this mandate. We fear the fever of politics may have caused many in the House and Senate to forget the wide variety of health-saving benefits offered by oral contraceptives, and we strive to keep the health of American women from being compromised. While considering, discussing, and especially when voting on matters regarding contraceptives and women's reproductive health, please keep in mind that "the Pill" is frequently used for matters other than simply prohibiting pregnancy. More than 1.5 MILLION women in the United States take birth control pills for non-contraceptive purposes. A woman's chance of developing endometrial and ovarian cancer can be decreased by more than 70 percent—just by taking the Pill for 12 years. Even taking it for just 1 to 5 years can lower those risks by up to 40%. The Pill also provides relief from serious health complications such as polycystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis, which can cause intense pain, scarring of the uterine lining, and sometimes infertility. It also defends against diseases of the fallopian tubes, which are known as pelvic provocative diseases. Women suffering from amenorrhea (lack of periods from low weight, stress, excessive exercise, or damage to the ovaries from radiation or chemotherapy) also benefit greatly because the estrogen in the Pill evens this balance by creating regular menstrual cycles. Oral contraceptives (OCs) are also frequently prescribed to help women have clearer skin and lighter, less painful periods. This may not seem like a big deal to those who have never menstruated, but please be assured, crippling pain and heavy flow periods every 28 days or so, for years on end, can be debilitating and lead to dependence on pain killers. According to research done by the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute, which used data from the National Survey of Family Growth, 14% of all women who take the Pill do so exclusively for reasons unrelated to controlling pregnancy. More than 58% of users say they take it, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. The debate over contraceptives and women's reproductive health issues has become clouded by politics. Making OCs affordable for women should not become a battle over Republicans vs. Democrats winning legislation—it should be about what's in the best interest of American women. PLEASE do not infringe upon accessibility of these drugs because of you may not want to support a policy of President Obama's. This should not be a battle between liberals and conservatives—it's about keeping Americans healthy and safe. On matters regarding the beliefs of Catholic employers—since when has the religious affiliation of an employer affected the type of health care coverage its employees receive? The cost to the company will still be the same. Why should a woman have to call and discuss her contraceptive needs with an insurance agent, when they should be able to go straight their doctor? The inclusion of contraceptives in this mandate is not forcing Catholics to do anything, nor is it intended to trample upon their rights. This is a matter of health coverage. The religious implications fall upon the shoulders of the individual, and no woman who's given the option of access to the Pill has to take it. Thank you for your time and attention.

People need to be allowed to fully move on from past mistakes, arrests, and crimes (non-felons) to gain quality employment. If people can't move on with their lives and secure a good job then they will continue to stay in that SAME CIRCLE of crime and hopelessness, and they will continue to depend on the tax payer for support. The conservatives don't want people to bleed the government (prison costs, food stamps, unemployment, welfare, and so on) but if people cannot secure a decent job then this problem will continue. Everyone deserves liberty and everyone deserves to have it back even if it was once lost… FREE FROM DISCRIMINATION. Using someone's past criminal background against them is a form of discrimination. After so many years (seven or ten years for example) everyone deserves the right to live a normal life. If you PAID YOUR DEBT TO SOCIETY, why should Virginia citizens continue to be punished and imprisoned by a criminal background for the rest of their life? Having a permanent record that can never be sealed is not a deterrent to crime because when you are young you are not thinking of the rest of your life. Plus, you never know why people make these mistakes. Maybe a child was sexually abused all his/her life and from 18 to 24 he/she was angry at the world and was arrested for heroin addiction (which is a disease). Maybe someone was unemployed and stole diapers for his/her new born and never made a mistake again as long as he or she lived. Good people make mistakes sometimes. What is a deterrent to crime is having something to lose, like a second chance for example. Without a second chance and without anything to lose why would anyone leave a life of crime or want to become a productive citizen? Think about... if you had a DUI or you stole a magazine from 7-eleven when you were 18 or 21, why should you still be paying for it when you are 30, 40 or 50 and want to contribute to society as a productive citizen? People change and evolve and can’t continue to be haunted and punished by past mistakes for the rest of their lives. If this particular individual can’t get a job at Target, for example, he/she may resort to selling drugs or he’ll just become a welfare case (putting a huge burden on the tax payer). Holding people down leads to more crime because when someone is desperate, broke, and can’t get a decent job that is the person you need to fear the most. That’s the individual likely to commit a crime and never turn their life around. However, if someone were convicted of petty larceny (misdemeanor) six years ago and had only two years to go before he/she could seal his/her record and get a decent job that person would never commit another crime because that person would be so focused on his/her SECOND CHANCE…People need a second chance to reach for. I understand that there needs to be restrictions and not everyone would be eligible to do this. But for the people who have truly learned from their mistakes and have completely turned their lives around they need a light at the end of the tunnel (so-to-speak). They need that driving force to tow the line and know that in time they can one day have a shot at a normal life and a DECENT JOB, free from discrimination. People need to be allowed, for example, to seal their record 8 to 10 years after their last misdemeanor conviction in VA. Imagine a 35 year old father or mother of two, who can’t get a job at Walmart or BB&T, having to explain to their kids that there will be no Christmas this year and that they will have to leave their apartment in 30 days (with nowhere to go) because of a few misdemeanors that he or she made when he or she was in college. At some point the suffering has to end. I will not stop until this law is changed and I look forward to the day when I can council young offenders that YES you have a reason to change your life and yes there is hope... This ladies and gentlemen is a deterrent to crime and a promoter of productive citizens. END THIS DISCRIMINATION and give people a reason to change

Misleading tenants, making false assumption, and racist connotation toward African-American Tenants, and filing frivolous dispossess after making a verbal agreement.

The purpose of this petition is to obtain reinstatement in to the US Army ROTC program and successfully get my commission as a second lieutenant back.

At a time when James Cameron and Richard Branson are racing to be the first person in 50 years to dive to the deepest part of the ocean, the only U.S. deep submergence facility in the Pacific is losing funding. The Hawai‘i Undersea Research Laboratory operates the Pisces IV and Pisces V submersibles, two of only eight human occupied vehicles that can go deeper than 1500 m in the world. In addition, HURL operates a robotic vehicle, a full ocean depth multibeam sonar mapping system, and supports a science and data center where these data are logged, archived, and made available to the wider scientific community and general public. Without this facility, we lose our ability for people to explore, discover and study the unique ecosystems, endangered habitats, life-sustaining marine processes, and other wonders of the deep ocean, live with their own eyes. Please join us in asking Congress to appropriate money so that deep-sea research via manned submersibles and other combined assets can continue. NOAA as a whole does really good work; let us help it continue.

To authorize the Secretary of Education to award grants to eligible entities to carry out educational programs about the Holocaust, and for other purposes.

In light of Ms. Graham's and Ms. Harrington's tragic disappearances from or adjacent to university property and the multitude of sexual assaults in the same areas over the past 5 years, UVa administration and police need to step up patrolling and student alerts to make grounds a safe place again. Students, professors, university staff, hospital employees and all other members of the university community deserve to live and work in a community where sexual predators and violent criminals do not feel comfortable hunting for victims on or nearby university property, which based on recent criminal activity, they very much do.

Stop killing the Florida black bear by sanctioned bear hunts, and killing our bear cubs by allowing winter or springtime controlled forest burns. Place the Florida black bear back on the Endangered Species List.

THE SUPREME COURT THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THE SUPREME COURT HAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY MORPHED ( EVOLVED ) INTO THE FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WHO’S IDEALOGOGY CONTROLS THE DIRECTION OF THE STATE BY REGULATING ( CONTROLLING )THE LAWYERS WHO PRACTICE THERE; AND IN TURN, THE LAWYER IS THE DECICIVE FACTOR OF WHO WINS IN A COURT BATTLE OF RIGHT AND WRONG, for POWER AND PROMINANCE; AND SOMETIMES WITH THE GUIDENCE OF THE COURT, Sue Sponte. THE REGULATION OF LAWYERS THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT BAR IS NOT A LICENSING AGENCY AND IT’S INTEGRATION INTO THE SUPREME COURT IS PRHIBITED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE III section I of the United States Constitution states: the supreme court shall have the power to regulate the practice of law in the state, “not integrate the ( Bar ) practice of law into the Supreme Court of the state”. own laws and principles is a breach of trust and contract. Besides the principle of judicial review, Marbury established that Congress cannot expand or restrict the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Section One requires that the judicial power of the United States be vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by the Congress. The Section explicitly requires "one" Supreme Court, but does not set the number of judges that may belong to it. Proposals to divide the Supreme Court into separate panels have been made, but they have all failed. Since all the proposals failed, the Supreme Court has never ruled upon the constitutionality of such a division; however, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, "the Constitution does not appear to authorize two or more Supreme Courts functioning in effect as separate courts". ( Bifurcation). The United States Constitution, AND The Florida State Constitution goes on to state that THE SUPREME COURT SHALL NOT BE BIFURCATED ( split up into divisions ). Under the Florida Constitution this prohibition can be found in Article V, §7 and §20, schedule for Article V, §§10 of the Florida Constitution that states: “The Supreme Court shall not be bifurcated”. In 1968 the scheme to incorporate The Florida Supreme Court and The Bar was just that, “ a scheme ”, to co-mingle these entities and create the Unconstitutional Board of the Bar of the Florida Supreme Court. By doing so, the Florida Supreme Court is in complete control of the legal system here in Florida: The Court grants the Lawyers their license and their discretion, take away that same license if deemed necessary for the Usurped administration of the practice of the law. In a little known case of 1983 this concept is well documented. “The Florida Supreme Court cannot pass judgment on its own decisions. Ins v. Chada 462 U.S. 919 (1983 ).”No Legislative Veto. This case states that there are no checks and balances when an entity gets to make the rules, and then gets to decide what rules it will follow. The Florida Supreme Court has done just that by UNCONSTITUTIONALLY integrating the Florida Bar into The Agency of The Court, thereby bifurcating the Court in strict Prohibition of the United States Constitution , and The Florida Constitution. There have been many challenges to the Supreme Court on the make up and distribution of power of the Court, but some-how The Supreme Court keeps winning its own cases; I mean, keeps winning the cases brought before it on charges of abuse of power, and any challenges to the Court about the unconstitutionality of the Bar and the Agency of the Supreme Court. It’s almost like they control the litigation!***. OH, I misspoke, they do control the litigation!! There are some well documented cases where the Florida Supreme Court has disbarred lawyers for not acting in accordance with the rules of the Court. See. Attorney Jack Thompson, or Attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley. Attorney Sibley was disbarred for representing a party who was opposed to the Florida Supreme Courts UNCONSTITUTIONAL practice of law. He asked the Court three Questions which the Court refused to answer: WHETHER, the Florida Supreme Court violated Petitioner’s right to an impartial tribunal by determining a matter in which it’s official “arm” was the Respondent? WHETHER, the actions of the Florida Bar in opposing Petitioner’s attempt to amend the Florida Constitution violated Petitioner’s First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances? WHETHER, by limiting access to the Florida Supreme Court to members of the Florida Bar, the Florida Supreme Court violated equal protection of the law guarantees? There are other cases where the Court Just refused to hear the case. The cases are dismissed under The Rooker/Feldman Doctrine, or a “DENIED” to hear the case is stamped on the complaint as in the case of Richard E. Schatzel, v. The Florida Supreme Court Board of Law Examiners, 3:08-cv-759-J-25 HTS, an applicant who challenged the proceedings of the Board of the Bar Examine...

We call upon the Utah Pride Center to remove Wells Fargo and Chase Bank from the 2018 and all future pride parades. We also call for a public meeting regarding the structure and appointment process for their Board of Directors.