How Gender Pay Gaps may be Keeping You from Providing for Your Family

Even in 2014, women are still a minority. While women are no longer expected to stay home and be housewives, the workforce is still not an even playing field between genders either. There is a significant pay gap between men and women across the United States. Additionally, there are statistically more single mothers than single fathers. While women are also responsible for the financial burden of supporting a family, many of which without the assistance of child support, the job market has not risen to meet the needs and demands of women in the workforce.

Some States have a Wider Pay Gap than Others

Though the workforce has changed for the better since the women’s movement in the 1960s, pay has yet to come a long way. According to, Nevada, Vermont, California, New York, Florida, Maine, Hawaii, North Carolina, and Arizona top of the pay leader board paying women between 85 cents to 82 cents per dollar that men earn for the same position. The states that offer the least pay equality are Wyoming with a measly 64 cents per dollar, and Louisiana with 67 cents per dollar.

According to, Los Angeles, California offers the best pay for women in the United States. The article claims that women in these three major cities make 91.4% of the pay that men make with women earning a median income of $40,777 in comparison to men’s median income of $44,607. In particular, woman in “administrative support positions, which (comprises) approximately 13.6% of the area workforce,” earn “a median salary equal to 102.9% of that paid to men.”

Single Mothers and Their Need for Equal Pay

Not only is the pay gap an issue in that women are being discriminated against, but women in particular may be in greater need of earning their deserved income. The US Census shows that just fewer than 70% of single parents are mothers without a cohabitating partner. Single fathers without cohabitating partners, on the other hand, make up nearly 10% of single parents. Moreover, many single mothers do not receive child support, and therefore must earn enough money to support an entire household without supplemental income.

According to the 2011 United States Census Bureau, 5,499,000 single, or custodial, mothers out of 11,767,000 have not been awarded child support or have no child support agreement. Out of the 6,298,000 custodial mothers that did receive payment, 3,150,000 are still waiting to receive payment in full. Though over half of custodial fathers are not awarded child support or have no child support agreement, the percentage of custodial fathers is significantly lower than that of custodial mothers with 2,643,000 custodial fathers in 2011. The percentage of custodial mothers living below the poverty rate is also double the percentage of custodial fathers who live below the poverty rate, with custodial mothers at 32% and custodial fathers at 16%. Though many women may have a greater need to earn more, they are still earning less than their male counterparts for the same position.

One Way in which Women can help Secure Employment and Better Pay

When it comes to salaries and the job market, men may already have the upper hand. One way in which women can help to secure better employment opportunities that offer higher pay is to expunge any offense from their criminal record. An offense will remain on a criminal record until the offense is actively removed, regardless of whether the offense was merely an arrest without a conviction, or if the offense resulted in a felony conviction. Even if an individual was convicted of a DUI as a teenager, the offense will follow the individual into adulthood, preventing the individual from finding employment in fields such as healthcare, education, and law enforcement.

Firearm Rights for Criminal Offenders in Oregon

In the state of Oregon, individuals with convictions on their criminal record, including certain felonies, may have the right to own firearms, which are taken away upon conviction. According to, ORS (Oregon Revised Statute) 166.270 states that a person commits the crime of possession of a weapon if they are caught having either a firearm or blade instrument, and have been previously convicted of a felony in Oregon or any other state in the United States. Furthermore, ORS 166.470 sets several limitations and conditions concerning the sales of firearms, including a ban on sale to people convicted of a felony, those having outstanding felony warrants, or those having been convicted of a violent misdemeanor.

Shooting a gun

Original photo by Rob Barrett Photography

Restoration of Firearm Rights

Under ORS 166.274, individuals convicted of a felony may have the right to restore their firearm rights. According to Section 5 of this statute, a convicted individual can petition with the Psychiatric Security Review Board, the Department of Human Services, the Oregon Health Authority, and the district attorney for relief. Once received, the petition is discussed in a contested case hearing in which the board goes over the facts and draws a conclusion based on the law. The restoration of the individual’s rights may be granted if he or she is able to demonstrate to the board that they would not be apt to commit a violent act based on their reputation, record, and circumstance of their firearm restriction. A petitioner can submit a request for judicial review of the board’s decision and may also go through the process of appeal with the circuit court to the Court of Appeals.

Restoration Limitations

There are several instances that would bar or limit a convicted offender from gaining relief from their firearm restriction. Those convicted of a person felony, as defined by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, which involves the use of a deadly weapon, including firearms, will not likely be granted relief of their firearm restriction. Additionally, relief may not be granted to those convicted of felonies defined under ORS 137.700, which includes murder, manslaughter, assault, kidnapping, rape, and robbery, among others. Furthermore, there are federal laws that prohibit the possession, sale, and use of firearms to individuals convicted of certain crimes. According to, the Lautenberg Amendment enacted in 1996 is an amendment that prohibits the possession of a firearm by those convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. To learn more about Oregon firearm rights restoration, visit’s Oregon firearm rights restoration page.

How Technology and Privacy are Helping and Hindering Each Other

In an age of social media and technology where everything is posted online and made easily accessible, protecting personal and sensitive information has become a concern. How can we reconcile living in a technologically dependent society and continue to protect our privacy simultaneously? While there is no foolproof solution to that dilemma, a few companies are taking significant steps toward embracing advancements in technology for the protection of privacy.

technology is helping and hinder Apple’s newest iPhone, the iPhone 5s, offers many revised applications as well as new and interesting features such as Touch ID – a new fingerprint identity sensor that will allow the phone’s owner to unlock the device by detecting his or her fingerprint. With as much personal information as we store in smart phones- bank account and credit card information, personal calendars, usernames and passwords, contact information, and so on – having the ability to secure that information is vital.

The iPhone 5s is also programed to allow authorized recognition of multiple fingerprints so that whoever the owner approves to unlock the phone can have access to do so. This new technology ensures that only people who have been authorized can have access to the phone and its contents, rather than just anyone who comes up with a random combination of numbers to unlock a security code.

How Advancements in Technology are also Invading Our Privacy

The new iPhone 5s is helping to protect the information on your phone by privatizing the device on the surface level. Unfortunately, your iPhone may not be protected from within. With technological advances like bumping – where smartphones can exchange contact information, photos, and files – it has also become easier for private information to be stolen from your phone. Without even touching your phone or you, a perpetrator can steal credit card and debit card information just by magically waving their phone over your wallet. There have also been complaints of iPhone apps distributing contact information when downloaded.

Apple and credit card companies have both taken steps toward correcting these safety issues. The problem, however, is that as technology continues to advance, so to does the ability to infiltrate and purloin private information. For instance, the ever-expanding scope of popular search engines has made cyber stalking increasingly easy, almost inviting the general public to spy on their neighbor by simply entering a name into a search field. Unfortunately, social media accounts like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn are not the only results that come up when a name is searched. Many basic privacy rights have been taken away in the name of fighting terrorism and with the creation of homeland security.

Who can View Your Online Records?

A hacker can easily find any information that has been uploaded into a computer system’s database, but you don’t have to be a hacker to find information about people online. Anyone can locate records once they have been put online. For instance, arrest records, including mugshots and booking information, can be found online, regardless of whether or not the person arrested has been convicted or found not guilty of the crime for which he or she was arrested. As such, anyone can easily view criminal records, including potential employers and landlords.

While you cannot completely control who has access to your personal information online, you may be able to prevent people from viewing your criminal history and mugshots. If you have expunged a case from your criminal record, the case is treated as though it never occurred and as such the information pertaining to your case is eligible to be removed from online databases.

Eliminating threats to privacy starts by taking proactive steps toward securing your cyber presence, whether online or on your smartphone. To ensure that your expunged case does not show up online, hire a specialist to perform a background database check, effectively removing your expunged record from public view. Removing your criminal record, and thereby your personal information, from public databases and search engines is just one way to secure your privacy and identity in a time of rapid technological expansion.

Definition of a Conviction

A conviction is the result when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime.

When the defendant makes a plea of “nolo contendere”, or no contest, it is also defined as a conviction in the United States.

If you have a conviction on your record and would like to determine whether or not your conviction is eligible for criminal record relief, visit for your free eligibility test or call today for your free over-the-phone consultation at 877-573-7273.


DNA Testing: Changing Investigations

DNA Testing: Changing Investigations

Alonzo King, a convicted Maryland rapist, may not be the ideal poster boy for individual privacy rights. However, his case is at the center of a tight debate about how and under what circumstances law enforcement officers should be allowed to collect an individual’s DNA. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling, coming down on the side of law enforcement. In their 5-4 decision, the Court held that DNA collection is useful and legal for police to do, even when there is no other evidence of a specific crime. Still more interesting is that the justices failed to follow their usual voting patterns. Associate Justice Scalia, who normally votes in favor of giving states more power, wrote the sharply worded dissent. All of the female justices, Ginsberg, Sotomayer and Kagen, voted with him.

What the SCOTUS decision on DNA collection means

Police no longer have to have a reason to suspect a person has committed a crime to collect his or her DNA. Once the person is “in the system,” police now have the right to check the person’s DNA against evidence for any number of offenses. For instance, a person can be arrested for shoplifting or DUI and his or her DNA can be compared to samples in murder or rape case files. Although the Supreme Court suggested DNA be used only for serious crimes, they indicated they had no real expectation that this barrier would stay in place.

DNA Swabs are Already in Practice

Twenty-eight states currently have laws in place to collect DNA swabs from persons arrested for serious crimes, according to ABC News. It is already standard procedure in all 50 states to collect samples from persons convicted of a crime. These samples are entered into a nationwide Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database administered by the FBI. The Washington Post reported that court documents state the database currently has more than 1.1 million samples.

Individual Rights Threats

The recent Supreme Court decision isn’t the only governmental threat to individual rights. In the past two decades, several laws have been enacted that infringe on American citizens’ Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Chief among these is the 2001 Patriot Act, which gives law enforcement the right to listen into phone conversations, monitor email communication and bug cars and living spaces without a court order if terrorism is suspected. In addition, there is proposed legislation in Congress that would allow law enforcement to monitor Internet records without a warrant if terrorism is suspected. Americans were recently made aware of mass surveillance of telephone records by the National Security Agency when whistleblower Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee, leaked evidence to The Guardian in London.

What This Means to You

You may think that the Supreme Court’s recent decision doesn’t affect you. Don’t judge so quickly. Remember, under the new ruling, you only have to be accused of a crime for law enforcement to collect your DNA, not convicted. Now, not only can police take your wallet with your business credit card and family photos in it, but can also take your DNA, regardless of the arrest circumstances.

The question of collecting DNA of suspects is likely to resurface again soon. As DNA technology changes and public opinion edges from favoring privacy rights to favoring government rights, we are sure to see the DNA question come into the limelight again.

Expungement Texas – A great resource for Record Clearing Info

Expungement Texas – A great resource for Record Clearing Info

If you’re looking for expungement services in Texas or around the great Houston/Austin area, Expungement Texas has great content that will help you find the information you need to help clear your record.

It seems that many people are confused with the term expungement. Well simply put, Expungement is a legal process to remove all or part of a criminal record from public view. The term has different meanings in different states. In Texas, expungement means to remove the conviction from the court record; so the court record shows a dismissed case.

To add confusion to the matter, it seems that our readers have a difficult time trying to figure out how to spell Expungement. We’ve found that many readers have spelled it incorrectly: exponged, expunged, or expung. Well, maybe you should read further or go back to grade school.

You see there is a big spelling difference between expungement and esponge.

Regardless, you should see if a free Texas eligibility test is the right step in the direction to get your record sealed.