So far nearly all of the states have a law that gives those convincted of a DUI additional penalties if there are children in the car. The only states that have yet to adopt this policy are: Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Vermont.

In every other state, those convicted of DUI who are known to have children as passengers in the vehicle with them could receive additional penalties such as: child abuse charges.

The states, however, differ on what constitutes a child and the severity of charges. In New York you can receive a felony charge for getting a DUI while any passenger with you in the car is under the age of 16. However in Wisconsin, the very same act is only considered a misdemeanor.

The activist group MADD is now fighting to get harsher sentencing for those who participate in such activity siting the fact that the largest number of child deaths between the ages of 3 and 14 are caused by vehicle accidents and in 2009 14% of those were due to alcohol-impaired accidents.

MADD believes that drunk drivers are not only putting the children in danger by their inability to drive carefully, but also their inability to recognize and use child restraints such as seat belts to ensure the children’s safety should an event such as this occur.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is now pushing to get the law changed. This advocacy group believes that there should be no second chances when children are involved and if you get caught in a second act of DUI with a child as a passenger in the vehicle you should receive a felony.

Some are fighting this idea, sighting the fact that this would stop many people convicted of DUI from obtaining jobs. MADD however stands by the idea and will continue to push for harsher punishments, especially when children are involved.

Supportive lawmakers stand behind protesters in an effort to retake the White House in this coming fall election.

The “March For Life” is not new to the National Mall. It has taken place every year since the 1974 decision legalizing abortion. It is one of the largest, consistent protests in Washington each year. However, this year’s rainy conditions kept numbers lower than usual.

House Speaker John Boehner is one of the lawmakers that joined the protesters, reminding them that he is one of 12 children of which he is very grateful, which he points out “must not have been easy on his mother.” He continues by saying he is “glad we’re all here.”

Boehner was only one of a couple dozen speakers who address the crowd on Monday. Participants cheered the congress members on as they talked on the topic of abortion.

Signs in the crowd of protesters included support of Presidential candidates Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, favorites among conservative Christians, as well as “I Voted Pro-Life First”, “De-Fund Planned Parenthood” and “Face It… Abortion Kills a Person.”

Protesters come from all across the United States to make their position known.

President Obama made a statement Sunday that reaffirms his decision to support a woman’s right to choose, saying that the government should not intervene on private family matters, especially in cases in which having the baby my “harm the mother’s health or reproductive freedom.”

Many protesters think that Abortion might be a bigger deal in choosing the next commander in chief if a bill concerning abortion was close to reaching the Supreme Court.

What do you think? Would you be voting differently if you knew that your choice might help determine the future supreme court justices and the decision to uphold Roe Vs. Wade?

Proponents of regulation are simply asking for the airwaves of national broadcasters to stay clean between 6am and 10pm, saying that this way parents can know for sure which channels will be safe for the whole family to enjoy.

Supporters also point out that these networks often own cable stations or movie production studios in which they are allowed to produce and air whatever kind of content they want.

Statistics show that 9 out of 10 households in America subscribe to either cable or satellite programming and those against regulation point out that with the simple touch of a button children are exposed to that kind of language and programming anyway.

They also say that not much would really change because national broadcasting channels are already sensitive to consumers who don’t want that kind of programming.

It has also been suggested that with the media now available through movies and internet content, children have plenty of other ways to access to this kind of content and regulating it on national broadcasting networks alone will not make a significant difference.

FCC Under Fire

The FCC is currently under fire in this case because of the lack of its ability to hold up its own regulations. In 1978 a New York radio station was fined after a 12 minute long George Carlin monologue which contained strings of expletives. The monologue was aired in the middle of the afternoon.

For years however, the FCC did not go after one time usage of curse words. This changed in 2002 and 2003 when during the Billboard Music awards in with both Cher and Nicole Ritchie dropped the F-bomb. Fines were not issued, but the FCC did state that these shows had violated their policy.

It will be interesting to see where this case ends up. Keep an eye on the news for more about television broadcast regulation.

These are followed by subsections that include: The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity. This includes how long the child has lived with each parent, and who has lived in the respective homes. Are there constantly significant others or friends moving in and out of the residence? Is it safe, clean and comfortable for the child?

Permanence of residence. This takes into account how often the parent is around, how often the child will be uprooted with moves, etc.

Also taken into account is the moral fitness of the involved parties. Does either party have a criminal record or a wild and active party life on the weekends?

According to Marie E. Matyjaszek the next category is the one that receives the most laughs but is often one of the most important. The mental, physical and emotional health of the parties involved. She says “of course everyone thinks their ex is crazy” but there are often times serious mental and emotional issues that are not seriously addressed.

This unfortunately is also where candy stuffed parents and kids will be taken into account. Of course, a little bit of candy, junk food and even fast food is fine. But if you are stuffing your child with pizza, McDonalds and Snickers on a daily basis, this may seriously impair your chances of winning the custody battle. Physical health of the child and parent or guardian bears just as much weight in the courts as does mental health and stability.

So, before you take little Tommy and Jane out for pizza, fast food and ice cream, or let them dig their hands deep into the cookie jar this weekend, you may want to rethink what you are doing to yourself and your children by letting them have whatever they want.

Famous attorneys Danielle and Andrew Mayoras wrote the book :”Trial and Heir:Famous Fortune Fights!” as a way to examine and document high profile celebrity cases that have caused quite a riot in family legacies and as a way to help the average everyday Jack and Jill deal with hard decisions regarding their futures.

The Mayorases have already appeared on a number of shows including The Rachel Ray Show, Forbes, ABC’s Live Well Network, NBC Chicago, WGN-TV, and Fox 2 Detroit. The Mayorases hope that by doing this special they can alert people to the importance of estate planning and help viewers prepare for their future, no matter their economic circumstance.

Of course, doing a special of this nature is treading on uncomfortable ground for many people. This is not something that the majority of Americans like to think about. The Mayorases hope that by approaching this subject in this lighthearted, catchy manner they will be able to inform, educate and interest people in getting into the nitty gritty of their estate planning.

The special features a never before seen interview with Ray Charles Jr. who talks about the pain and grief his father’s estate has caused his family. In addition to Ray Charles Jr., the Mayorases will discuss the stories of Sonny Bono, Marlon Brando, Princess Diana, Michael Jackson and James Brown just to name a few.

Viewers can look for this show to air on their local PBS station sometime during the month of December and if they choose to pledge to their local PBS station they can receive the DVD, book and other special features available locally.

This may seem not seem too outrageous, there are mothers in the world that probably should be sued for some of the things they have done to their children, however, this case was a little far-fetched to say the least.

Steven and Kathryn Miner, both in their twenties sued their mother for bad parenting in 2009,citing emotional distress as the major offense.

Evidence brought forth in the case included birthday cards without money and a daughter with a curfew, upset about not being allowed to purchase the homecoming dress she wanted and a threat to call the police on her son who refused to put his seat belt on in the car. The most serious offense brought before the judge was that the mother had once slapped her son upside the head causing him to suffer from “chronic headaches.”

The judge dismissed the case saying there was not sufficient evidence of “bad parenting” and the children will not receive any of the desired $500,000.

Interestingly enough this is not the first case of its kind. Child star Gary Coleman is just one of many who has taken his parents to court for “misappropriation of finances” and in 1978 a 24-year-old man tried to sue his parents for “malpractice of parenting.” The 1978 case was also dismissed.

Among other outrageous law suits include the ban of scents in workplaces in Detroit, a failed suicide damages suit and a woman who sued a gym when she fell during a pole dancing class because she wasn’t able to hold herself up.

The law was passed just last month and caused quite a ruckus in schools all over the state. Hundreds of Hispanic children didn’t attend school during the first few days after the law took affect for fear that immigration officials would be waiting at the doors.

In the state capital of Montgomery, 231 Hispanic children were absent the first day the law went into effect. Numbers of absentees were abnormally high in other parts of the state as well and many withdrew their children from school all together.

The law was passed simply for information gathering and officials say it is unfortunate that the children are suffering because of misunderstandings about possible legal repercussions.

The Court of Appeals

This may be what led this issue to the court of appeals. The American Civil Liberties Union along with the Southern Poverty Law Center presented their legal arguments and challenges to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals who blocked the provisions previous put into place.

They did this on the grounds that this law would do more harm than it would good, especially in the school systems.

Blocking the Law- Temporarily

Parts of the law have been temporarily blocked due to constitutional questions, a process that could take months to clear up. Sections of the law were allowed to go into effect which gives both sides a small victory.

The temporarily blocked provisions include:
- Requiring state officials to check immigration status of children in public schools
- “Willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration card” a misdemeanor

The appeals court said it would hear arguments as early as December for constitutional issues. However, many people fear that this issue may ultimately have to be solved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is in serious trouble. With the budget crisis and the threat of a government shutdown in Washington, things are looking worrisome, not only for those disaster victims relying on the support FEMA, but for the entire agency itself.

Already there are projects on hold for FEMA, millions of dollars’ worth. With the recent onslaught of tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural disasters, there is now a screening process on what will get aid, and what won’t.

As of now, the relief fund funding FEMA has only $114 million left, but this won’t hold out for long. FEMA is in serious need of cash flow, and is waiting for Congress to step in with aid in order for it to keep functioning—but Congress can’t seem to decide on a plan of action (what a shocker!).

According to the FEMA spokeswoman, Rachel Racusen, if the final dollars of the disaster fund dwindle away completely, laws requiring action take effect. When this happens, the effects could be drastic.

If the money hits a $0. point, the spokeswoman explains, “Under law, FEMA would be forced to temporarily shut down disaster recovery and assistance programs, including financial assistance to individuals until Congress appropriated more funds. This would include all past and current FEMA recover operations.”

A Solution?

However, Congress can’t make a decision as to what to do with this necessary relief program. Currently, Congress stands at an impasse over a stopgap bill as a solution to the budget problem.

If Congress can’t make a decision by September 30th (the end of the fiscal year), a full governmental shutdown could finally happen. (Or Congress could give themselves more time, as they’ve done before.)

Congress is currently trying to pass a bill as a temporary fix that will fund essential functions until the 18th of November, but the disbursement of the funds is the argument they can’t agree on.

As the deadline approaches, we’ll see if the government shuts down as it threatens to, or if they can finally come to an agreeable solution.

This question will mark all those who are old enough to answer it for their lifetimes. It’s a defining moment of a lifetime, and of a country.

Two big, beautiful pools flow with water and now take the place of some of the most notorious buildings the world has ever seen. The twin towers are gone, but the names and memories of those lost will never fade fully from a country still so wounded.

As the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 came and went, hundreds and thousands of people went on a journey of looking back, keeping memories alive, and letting the water wash past the nearly 3000 names of the tragic victims of the fateful terrorist attacks.

But with the 10 year anniversary of such a tragic and life changing event, questions arise.

As we look at where we are today versus where we were 10 years ago. What have we accomplished in the last 10 years to counteract these horrible acts? When will the suffering end? When will our troops come home?

What are troops hoping to accomplish by the nation’s continued presence in Iraq? By continuing to force our presence on a country who doesn’t want us there in the first place, we’re causing more damage than good.

By attacking the world trade centers, one could argue bin Laden attacked a symbol of what he viewed as an enemy of his people, a cause of extreme disturbance, and a threat to end his and his people’s way of life: commercialism.

So bin Laden attacked with the weapons he knows well: fear and cowardice.

With the force of our presence in the Gulf War, and with it the introduction of commercialism to Iraq, America created many enemies, including Hussein and bin Laden.

With our continued presence in Iraq, are we doing more harm than good? What future enemies are we creating in an oil capital rife with a people who generally hate the United States?

Witnessing the 10 year anniversary of such a devastating loss to the country brings these questions to mind. What must happen to bring our troops back home? What must happen to end the fighting and death?

The public’s view of Anthony is mostly negative, most people having believed her to be guilty for her charges, from their own analyses of the evidence. Well, whether or not Anthony was or wasn’t guilty, she was released from jail 12 days after the verdict was made, and now she faces a new life in a world where people who know who she is, don’t like her at all.

What should Casey Anthony do? Some people suggest she leave her hometown, and possibly change her name, so she can have a new start. Anthony isn’t the first person to have to face the world alone after court, but she definitely is a person of interest in the media right now.

How does someone who’s spent an extended amount of time in jail, whether they are guilty or not guilty of their charges, start their life again? Many of them (like Anthony) don’t have the family or friend support that it may take to get back on your feet again. Perhaps Casey Anthony needs to find a place far enough away so that she can start a normal life again. Officials want to keep her from fleeing the country (just in case, I suppose) but there are other places in America where the world isn’t quite so small.