Being multinational organisations the IMF, World Bank and WTO can start programs that not only would focus on providing shelter, food and clothing to the poor but also a good and sustainable source on income. By providing a sustainable livelihood to these poor people these organisations would them be able to provide themselves making them able to no longer rely on charity and donations in order to survive their daily lives. By having a sustainable source of income these poor people can have the ability to gain money which then can be used to buy their own food, clothing, shelter and education. The most important thing that money would give to these poor people is education. Through proper education these poor people would increase their knowledge enabling them to be qualified for higher paying jobs.
The correct answer is - B. Abortion rights.
The religious right has always been against the abortion rights of women and they have always tried to restrict them. In their opinion it is a sin and it is against God's will, and every concealed child has to be born and given the chance to live.
Now this has always been very controversial and the majority of people in the western world don't agree with it, and there's multiple very good reasons for it:
- a woman can be raped and impregnated
- the child might be unplanned and the couple is not feeling ready both emotionally and financially to raise a child
- women have right to decide about their own bodies
- in the early stages the fetus is still not a separate functional organism but in fact is literary a parasite to the human body
I know that Salem Poor fought at Bunker Hill and I think he fought at Saratoga as well.
Mecca and Jerusalem, since Muhammad was born in Mecca and he rose up to heaven in Jerusalem
The answer that is not true is A: "Scott could only sue in state courts."
Whether Dred Scott, as a slave, had any legal right to sue in court was a matter that applied whether talking about state or federal courts. When Scott's suit was rejected by a state of Missouri court, Scott and his supporters managed to bring the case into a federal court, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. Though the Supreme Court at the time ruled that Scott had no right to bring the suit because he was a slave and not a citizen (point D above), the case gave Chief Justice Roger Taney opportunity to make further statements regarding the slavery issue, including points B and C in your list above.
