Comment on "Planned Parenthood"

In Keturah Colds blog post titled: Planned Parenthood, she discusses the current situation in Texas that is related to funding being pulled from several thousand Planned Parenthood facilities.  The Huffington Post posted a great article about the issue and I must say that before I go on, there were many intriguing blog posts written by my fellow classmates that interest me, however, this issue with Planned Parenthood weighs very heavily on my heart and on my mind.  The fact that we are having this debate and that the District Court or any court for that matter can bring this up again in the 21^st Century infuriates me!  I agree with everything that Ms. Colds points out in her post.  It is true, there are many services that Planned Parenthood provides for women.  For several years I used Planned Parenthood for routine check-ups.  I have always been comforted by the fact that if I were ever in the position again where I did not have health insurance, Planned Parenthood would be there to address my specific health care needs at an affordable price.  Now, I am not so sure that they will be there for me to fall back on.

The unfortunate reality is that the proposed efforts to pull the funding and the threat to shut down the Women’s Health Program is an abortion issue.  It is nothing more than a political stunt to appease the Pro-lifers.  A woman has a legal right to choose.  Whether you agree with abortion or not – IT’S THE LAW.  It was settled, or so I thought, in the Roe v. Wade case which, not surprisingly, originally took place here, in the great state of Texas.  Has time somehow been turned back 40 years?  What’s happening!!??  

How can politicians get away with their attempt to try to take away funding and force women to have vaginal ultrasounds?  I am so confused.  I am very disappointed in our Legislature and truly enraged by the notion that the law can be so easily manipulated.  We, as women, must stand up for our rights and we must fight this war on abortion.  The simple fact of the matter is that in the past,  women were literally risking their lives to exercise what they felt was a constitutional right - to decide when and if they wanted to have children.  My fear today is that women will again compromise their future health and possibly their lives again if the District Courts and the Nation fails to do the right thing and abolish all of the proposals that limit women’s health and their right to choose.  

Women want to feel comfortable and confident in the decisions that we make when it comes to our health.  The threat of losing thousands of Planned Parenthood facilities (one of the most reliable, affordable health care clinics for women) I believe would turn back the clock and make women find alternative unsafe methods to terminate their pregnancies.  Just the thought of it makes me want to start a new sexual revolution and believe me we won’t just be burning bras and marching on Washington this time – oh no, this time, it’s War.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

The death penalty has always been a very debatable subject in most states – except Texas.  It seems that here there are more supporters of the death penalty than not.  I say this because we continue to elect state officials who support it.  Our previous governor, Gov. George W. Bush is one the death penalty’s biggest supporters, perhaps even more so than Gov. Rick Perry.  An article written on Sept. 11, 2011 by Arlette Saenz of ABC News reports:  “Under Perry, Texas has executed 235 people over nearly 11 years – amounting to more than 21 people per year. During Bush’s five-year tenure as governor, 152 people were executed in Texas - more than 30 per year.” 

Texas should ban executions.  According to an editorial written this week in the Dallas Morning News titled: Salute to Connecticut on death ban the writer explains that: “Eyewitnesses are mistaken. Forensic evidence is misread or misinterpreted. Innocent people admit things they didn’t do. Innocent people end up with bad lawyers and cut bad deals. Innocent people go to death row.”  All of these statements are true and can easily be proven by researching actual cases of the wrongly convicted.  Here are a couple of examples: Cameron Todd Willingham convicted of murder by arson was executed a few years ago.  Based on the evidence presented, people all over the world believe that he was wrongly convicted and died an innocent man.  More recently, Kerry Max Cook was exonerated but is still a marked man as explained in an article published in the Texas Tribune by Michael Hall:

Cook’s situation is complex. His death sentence was twice overturned by higher courts, DNA taken from the victim’s underwear did not match his own, and the evidence used to convict him has been shown to be entirely fallacious — but because Cook pleaded no-contest to the murder on the eve of what would have been his fourth trial, he cannot be declared actually innocent.

Another startling statistic is that during the past 10 years there has been over 40 prisoners exonerated due to DNA evidence.  That is more than enough reason for me to believe that we must ban state executions and reduce all of the current death row sentences to life without parole.    

A very small part of me deep down in my soul agrees with the death penalty supporters and I can empathize with the victims' family and understand why the death penalty would be justifiable punishment for victims of hateful, violent crimes.  What I do not understand is how death penalty supporters can sleep at night when they know the criminal justice system is flawed and full of human error and innocent people are being convicted on a regular basis.  Based on the statistics, it is also HIGHLY likely that innocent people have already been executed or will be in the future. 

Hey, we all make mistakes right?  I am sure that lawyers mix-up files, forensic evidence is lost or misplaced from time to time or some other administrative error occurs during criminal cases.  In the case of the death penalty, isn’t one mistake one too many?

Comment on "Shake up the System"

In Melanie Warren’s blog titled “It is Time for Those Who Lead to Give a S***!” I totally agree that the local politicians are partly to blame when it comes to low voter turnout and for the politically uneducated masses.  I also agree that the Mayor and City Council members should take a more active role with educating the public and getting more citizens involved by knocking on doors, making phone calls, and making City Council meetings more accessible and less complicated.  However, there are many things that the rest of us can do to increase knowledge about state and local government.  Blogs like this are a great example.  If we have knowledge that we can share with our peers, we should do that more often.  I am sure that most people would be more motivated by someone that they know as opposed to a “dirty” politician who usually has an ulterior motive.

Secondly, the school system can do a much better job with adding political education to its curriculum.  I feel that Texas government courses should be required during elementary school and should continue each year or at least every other year until High School graduation.  The courses should focus on more than just the Alamo.  We need to start teaching children how to think critically during their formative years; they need to know about the history of the political process and how it works today.  They also need to understand the roles of the Mayor, City Council and other locally elected officials.  By doing so, our citizens would have a much strong foundation of knowledge in regards to the political process and hopefully, by the time they are of legal voting age, will be able to make well-informed decisions based on knowledge instead of how most people vote: superficial ideology or party affiliation.    

I was lucky enough to grow up in a family that discussed political issues regularly and my mother always reminded me how important it was to vote.  Even still, I am guilty of not keeping up with the city, state and county elections and other issues.  If it weren’t for me taking this class right now, it would be very easy for me to disengage from local politics, especially with the national election coming up this year.  Why is that?  I don’t think it is the politicians’ fault that I am not keeping up with current news.  I do believe that the media could play a much bigger role to help citizens become more aware of the issues at hand.  The media, especially TV, plays a huge role when it comes to educating the public.  The local news should take more time to profile candidates, talk about political issues and perhaps spend two minutes less on the weather (all I need to know if it I need a coat or umbrella) and use that time to educate the public about issues that affect voters and tax payers.

Like Melanie, I also believe “that people, if given the chance and the education, would answer the call and become involved.” But in my opinion, the  “monumental challenge” starts with us not them. By sharing information with our peers; adding more political curriculum in the schools; using media more effectively to educate the masses; along with Melanie’s suggestions…. Texas' government could better reflect its citizens' views and ideals in just a few short years.

The Young and the Rest - less educated

In 2011, Gov. Rick Perry challenged Texas’ higher education institutions to make college more affordable.  His specific request was for Texas colleges to find a way to create a bachelor’s degree that would cost $10,000 or less including books.  In an article posted on March 29, 2012 in the Texas Tribune, by Reeve Hamilton titled:  “Texplainer: How Can I Get a $10,000 degree?”,  he explains how Texas A&M University San Antonio in partnership with Alamo Community Colleges have figured out a way to create a degree program for approximately $9700.  There are three distinct stipulations for qualifying for the bachelor’s degree:  (1) the student must take most of the required college classes while attending high school; (2) the student must attend an Alamo Community College for a year prior to transferring to Texas A&M and; (3) the degree obtained must be a bachelor’s of applied arts and sciences in information technology with an emphasis in computer security. 

As an adult returning student, currently attending Austin Community College and planning to transfer to a 4-year university in the fall - I am immediately disqualified from the pursuit of this less expensive degree program.  I don’t discount the plan completely.  I believe the program will benefit the T-STEM Early College High School students in the San Antonio area who have a strong desire to maintain such a degree at an affordable price.  My issue is that it looks like these are the only students who will be able to take advantage of the so-called $10,000 degree.  My other issue is that Gov. Rick Perry seemed to only think up this grand idea during his campaign for the Presidency.  Coincidence?  You be the judge.  The other extraordinary coincidence is that Gov. Rick Perry is the only Texas governor who is an alumnus of Texas A&M University, which is the only school, for now, that is planning to implement such a degree program this fall.

In his article, Hamilton makes a good point:  “the degrees are very narrowly tailored to specific universities.”  In my opinion, this also makes them less available to a significant number of students.  Why not offer such a plan to single mothers, military service members and their dependents, and students who are economically disadvantaged?  I can think of a plethora of students who could benefit and be willing to obtain a bachelors of applied arts and sciences in the information technology with an emphasis in computer security.  Especially if they knew it would increase their chances of obtaining gainful employment in the near future.  

According to Wendy Rigby a Journalist with channel KENS 5 news of San Antonio, “The degree will funnel students into the cyber security field, an area where San Antonio is second only to Washington, DC.”   This is a great plug for the program, except during that same time an A&M System spokesman named Steve Moore expressed in an email that “There is not a scalable approach that will result in meaningful, affordable degree plan development…" so who should we believe and why should Texans buy into such a program?  It seems that all of the major universities in Texas should have accepted Gov. Perry’s challenge and start doing something to reduce high costs associated with college education, right now.  

My theory is that this degree was a plot to provide Gov. Rick Perry with some talking points on how he has “improved” education in Texas during his failed campaign for Presidency while also making a nice commercial for his alma mater.  The $10,000 degree that can be obtained from Texas A&M San Antonio makes a very small impact in today’s high-cost world of higher education and still leaves millions of current and potential Texas college students with the challenge of finding ways to afford higher education and stay competitive in today’s ultra-competitive job market.

The New Roe v. Wade

MeanRachel’s blog post titled: “The Texas Shame Act”, Rachel Farris writes about the popular, politically charged comic strip “Doonesbury”.  This past week, the author of “Doonesbury”, Gary Trudeau targeted Texas and Governor Rick Perry by satirizing the anti-abortion sonogram law.  As of February, Texas state law mandates that a woman who chooses to have an abortion must undergo a vaginal ultrasound and the doctor must verbally describe the ultrasound result to her within 24 hours prior to the actual procedure.

The “Doonesbury”sonogram law series has sparked national media attention.  Farris sarcastically addresses her audience in regards to the attention that the comic strip has received.  She writes:  “Of course, this is causing proponents of the law a bit of anxiety as they never expected anyone but liberal, hairy-legged peace pipe players and baby killers to pay attention to the law or even hear about it.”  Her description of the “liberals” (who I am sure comprise the bulk of her audience) is quite comical and “Bill Maher-esque.” Her style is not for the faint of heart.

The remainder of Farris’ argument is fueled by the comments of the CEO of anti-abortion Heidi Group, Carol Everett who says, as reported by KVUE News:

"I'm very sad that a Texas law is being made fun of in this manner, when all this is about is protecting the health of women," said Carol Everett, CEO of anti-abortion non-profit the Heidi Group. "...[W]e do not need to be putting it in the comic section, first of all, where families and children may see it, or even the editorial page. We need to give that woman the privacy that she deserves when she makes that decision, yet a fully-informed consent."

In response to Everett’s comments, Farris unleashes her poignant yet humorous disposition:  “If all this law is about is simply "protecting the health of women," then what's the harm of it being brought up in the comic section where ‘families and children may see it’?  If that’s all this law is about, truly a plight to keep women safe then why can’t I read about it while I gulp down OJ and Cheerios?”    

The communication styles of authors like Trudeau and Farris could be compared to the anti-abortion sonogram law itself: perhaps it makes one feel uncomfortable, to some it may be invasive, or to many their point of view may not necessarily need to be heard at all.  The beauty of living in this country is that we all have a choice.  If we disagree with the author, we can just turn the page, close the web browser or unsubscribe.  Unfortunately, to the women of Texas who choose to exercise their legal right to have an abortion, they are now forced to have their right to choose compromised by state mandates - turning the page or closing the browser is not an option.

In [ __ ] We Trust

This past Sunday in the Austin American Statesman, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Ken Herman enlightens us on his views in regards to U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery (San Antonio) and his recent decision to settle a case in regards to the existence of prayer in a Texas public school.  Biery, appointed by Pres. Bill Clinton in 1994, has been criticized for his decision by many GOP politicians including Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, which of course shines a light on this case during a presidential election year.

Under the settlement, Herman explains: “Medina Valley school employees cannot join students in prayer circles or invite people to pray, and religious symbols are barred from display on school grounds.”  Any efforts to offer prayers at events such as football games or during graduation ceremonies must be introduced as “student remarks”.

The case, filed last May, involves an agnostic high school senior, whose parents filed a lawsuit requesting that organized prayer no longer be allowed in public schools, particularly the upcoming Medina Valley High School graduation ceremony.  Judge Biery ruled in favor of the family by issuing a temporary order barring students from asking audience members to join in prayer or to bow their heads.  In early June, a day before the graduation ceremony, the ruling was overturned by Gov. Rick Perry and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.  As a result, the valedictorian indeed led the crowd in prayer during the graduation ceremony.

As stated in the title of his article, Herman believes that the "Judge brings us back to the real issue in [this] school prayer case”.  Ironically, the author believes that the "real issue" is not the right to pray but the right to limit government’s ability to force religious practice upon those who choose not to participate.  According to Herman, “there is nothing wrong with the school prayer discussions spilling over into our political discourse, which remains the best place for us to argue about things like this.  But sometimes things go too far…Looks like this is one of those times.”  

I agree that the settlement went too far and I believe that it is not necessarily the court’s responsibility to decide how we pray (or don't pray), however I disagree about the “real issue”.  I believe that the "real issue" truly is about prayer and religion.  My belief stems from the fact that conservatives who say they want to minimize the size of government, like Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, continue to express that when it comes to religion, reducing the size of government does not apply.  It looks like "the right" will continue to fight to make the issue of religious practices of the majority a political issue.  

As someone who classifies themselves as a Christian, I am pleased that this country was founded on such wonderful, historical values of Christian love, forgiveness and equality but we should never substitute religious values for Constitutional rights which unfortunately I think is exactly what has happened in this case.  I just hope that cases such as this are continuously challenged and brought to the forefront so that our Constitution at some point will become a practice and not just a theory.

To Redistrict or Not to Redistrict

In this month’s issue of the Texas Monthly, deputy editor Brian D. Sweany exposes the drama of the ongoing legislative debate over the Texas redistricting map.  In his article titled “Mappily Ever After”  he states that the redistricting issue is one that consistently leaves voters feeling frustrated, angry and at times confused.

This past January the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments in regards to the interim maps for Texas congressional and legislative districts.  These maps were created by a federal court in San Antonio last November.  The changes to the electoral maps were required because Texas grew by more than four million people in the last decade, with about 65 percent of that growth coming in the Hispanic population. The growth entitled the state to four additional House seats.  Sweany explains that the redistricting process has been a tactic used for decades by political parties to win votes, while bringing about “bloody partisan warfare” and spending millions of dollars on litigation in the process.

The bulk of the article focuses on state senator Jeff Wentworth's proposal to eliminate the bipartisanship of redistricting. Wentworth has sponsored several bills on redistricting in previous sessions that would have created an independent, bipartisan commission to remove the Legislature from the process.  In previous years, Wentworth’s plan passed the Senate a few times but none have ever made it passed the House. 

Depending upon the Supreme Court’s ruling (scheduled to be released by February 3rd) the upcoming Texas primaries could be delayed for the second time this year.  If this case of redistricting is not resolved soon, the outcome could greatly influence the votes in favor of one party and possibly frustrate voters even more.  To read the entire article click here