Cheryl Perich had filed a lawsuit against the church and the school for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. She was fired after she became sick in 2004. After a few months, she felt better and was able to work. But when the school urged her to resign, she refused to. So, they fired her.

The representatives believed that ministerial exception, which is under the first amendment in the Constitution, should apply in their case. Ministerial exception is basically gives religions certain rights to control employment matters without the courts interfering.

The funny thing about this case is that, Perich was not a minister. She was offered to be one, but she wasn’t. Also, she wasn’t teaching in a religious nature.

The state of California made cuts to many medical facilities and doctors due to their lack of money. This is seemingly allowed in the Medicaid Act, section 30(A). In three different cases the state was sued, one being the Independent Living Center of Southern California. They each won their cases, stating that if the cuts in funding went through then the quality of their services would also suffer and not meet up with the standards of the Medicaid Act. However the Director of Heath Care Services has brought the case to the Supreme Court.

In the Case: California Director Toby Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Petitioner Schwartz claims that the 30(A) clause of the Medicaid Act - A Spending clause that says services are paid by the state with recognition to the economic stability of the state itself - is too genaral and does not allow a single service to enforce the Act when finances are cut due to the state’s own recession. Basically saying 30(A) is not enforcible and wants there to be a amendment that allows private services to sue and claim the appropriate reimbursement for their work.

Petitioner Kneedler disagrees saying that Medicaid is an agreement between the Federal Government and the States. Not the private facilities within the states. Schwarts and the other hundreds of thousands of doctors shouldn’t be able to sue becuase it would cause problems across the state when hundreds of judges can make different judgements for each similar case. That would be unfair. Yet he does agree that 30(A) is not complete.

I believe that youth that are in better shape lead a happier life, than teens that are overweight and obese. Currently, the biggest supporter is Michelle Obama, she is running her own "Move your Body Campaign" along with her pushing legislation on a bill that will make food in school cafeterias healthier. Locally, however an organization by name Sports Teaching and Reaching Students (otherwise known as STARS.) Opposing middle school athletics is the Philadelphia school district, it's not as though they hate it, they are cutting it because they think it less important than other 

Locally there is no pending legislation, however the bill proposed by Michelle Obama to improve school lunch's has been approved. I would like to see all middle schools have interscholastic sports and possibly intramural sports too. 

What I am lobbying for is a stricter curfew instead of increasing in fines. Jail time should occur for repeating offenders who break this law. For example A first violation of Philadelphia's curfew law will result in the imposition of a $250 fine and/or community service. Parents are held responsible for the actions of their teens.  The fine for the first offense of breaking curfew is $300 and up to $500 for the second offense.

People who support the curfew would be all adults for example Polices, City Council, Mayor, Parents and many other adults out there.

People who don’t support the curfew is teens who think they can disobey rules when being told.

According to love to know.com/ facts about teenager curfewsOf the 72 cities that have daytime curfews, all showed a drop in truancy and daytime burglaries.

http://www.legalinfo360.com/2011/08/teens-arrested-breaking-new-philadelphia-curfew-law/

         My reasoning form lobbying against the curfew for minors because I am a minor. I like to go out with my friends on the weekends in center city and go to restaurants. Or just get ice cream at scoop devils. But with the new curfew that make it impossible. I work on the weekends as well and I normally don’t get off until 6. SO when I get to center city its about 9. And I just don think its fair for everyone to suffer because of one group of people. And the main supporters lobbying this change in curfew such as Mayor Nutter, and parents of children in Philadelphia don’t understand the need to for kids to go out and enjoy their selves.  They don’t look at the new curfew from a child’s point of view. We feel as though all of our freedom is being taken away.

         Although it is said that the curfew is not permanent I feel as though soon it will because nothing is being done to change the curfew. I do suggest that instead of taking the curfew completely away we raise the time limit for older teens.