Law & Daily Life - The FindLaw Life, Family and Workplace Law Blog

Recently in Health & Safety Category

Whether you're crossing things off your packing list and ready to hit the road, or you're crossing your fingers that your kids will come home safe from partying at the beach, there are probably one or two legal questions running through your mind as you get ready for spring break. What if your flight gets cancelled? Does your driver's license work in other countries? How serious are DUI laws in Florida?

Lucky for you, spring breakers, we have those answers and more right here:

There can be some very good reasons to call the police and report a crime right away, like if a crime just occurred or someone could be a danger to the public. And there are some very good reasons to wait: maybe you fear retribution from the person committing the crime, or you're not even sure if what you saw was related to criminal activity. But is it possible to wait too long?

Between mandatory reporting laws, statutes of limitation, and even accomplice liability, there are also some reasons to make sure you report a crime in a timely fashion. So, when does your time run out?

Whether you're trying to keep yourself healthy, keep young children and old relatives from getting sick, or you just need to do it for work, you might be thinking about getting a flu shot this year. But hey, it's already the middle of February and spring is right around the corner. So, do you really need one? Or is it already too late to get one?

Here's what you need to know.

For those that don't already have health insurance through their employer, the Affordable Care Act provides a marketplace for insurance plans. Known more broadly as Obamacare, the ACA also requires everyone to have some health insurance plan while guaranteeing coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions.

So, when do you need to enroll? And when is it too late to get health insurance coverage for 2019 under Obamacare?

California Pet Stores May Only Sell Rescue Animals

If it pushes an industry underground, is it still a good idea? That is the dilemma Californians will soon find out. AB 485 went into effect at the beginning of this year, and makes California the first state to require pet stores to only sell rescues when it comes to dogs, cats, and rabbits.

The legislature intended to decrease the demand for animals coming from "puppy mills" and "kitten factories," which have a reputation for being cruel to animals. But by continuing to allow the sale of non-rescues by individuals, the legislature possibly hurt, rather than helped, a large majority of these animals.

For many parents and children, ear piercings are a rite of passage. And parents have a few options when it comes to piercing their children's ears. Some pediatricians will offer to do it, professional tattoo and piercing parlors are perhaps the most experienced option, and then there are the jewelry stores in the mall.

Then again, there are home piercing kits or even a sterilized needle in the kitchen or bathroom. But those parents turning to the home piercing option face an interesting legal question: Is it illegal to pierce your children's ears at home? And how old do they need to be before you can do it?

Who, exactly, is the U.S. government, whom do they serve, and who will represent their interests in court? Those questions are brought into sharp relief when discussing Obamacare -- or the Affordable Care Act -- a landmark piece of legislation passed by Congress under the previous president, much to the chagrin of many in the Republican party. While the vast amount of Americans are pretty pleased with the expansion in health insurance coverage, Republican lawmakers have continued to attack the ACA, and the new Republican president has made sure his administration will not defend the law in court.

But the new House of Representatives, with a new Democratic majority, decided it would take over that defense. Democrats voted to direct the House's Office of General Counsel to represent lawmakers in any litigation involving the ACA, and allow the House to intervene in ongoing ACA litigation. With two branches of the U.S. government battling in front of the third branch about legislation proposed and passed under former administrations, where does that leave Obamacare?

New SNAP Work Requirements to Take Food Stamps From 755K People

At the direction of President Trump, the USDA has announced new, more stringent, work requirements for people receiving Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. This new set of rules may keep an estimated 755,000 from receiving SNAP benefits, commonly known as foods stamps.

Many believe this new requirement was the result of closed door dealings. This announcement came the same day President Trump signed the new farm bill, which did not include the SNAP work requirements the Republican Congress had been seeking. By having the mandate come directly from the USDA, which administers the program, the Trump administration was able to use regulatory rulings instead of a congressional and senate vote.

Reducing the number of people receiving food stamps will surely reduce government expenditures, since the average person receives about $142 per month. But will it hold up to legal challenges?

Domestic Violence Safety Planning: Legal Tips for Survivors

Domestic violence is like a thick fog. You can see it when it's far away, but as you get near, you aren't sure you've entered it until you can barely see ahead. You don't know when it will end, and sometimes your only strategy is hope.

But what if you planned before you went into the fog? What if you had a roadmap so that when you found yourself in the thick of it, instead of panicking and not knowing what to do, you had a plan, which helped you remain calm and productive? Here are some legal tips to help you create a safety plan in case you or someone you love has a foggy future ahead.

"So, why are we here?" asked U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves, rhetorically. "Because the State of Mississippi contends that every court who ruled on a case such as this 'misinterpreted or misapplied prior Supreme Court abortion precedent.'"

Judge Reeves did not share that same legal perspective, and instead overturned, in no uncertain terms, a statewide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. "No, the real reason we are here is simple," Reeves wrote. "The State chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade."