Blurred Lines: Aborting Misconceptions

Mildred, in her blog post “Abortion Affiliates”, seems to have misunderstood Ft. Worth Representative Lon Burnam’s position on the women's healthcare debate raging in the Texas senate currently. Burnam, a democrat, purposed a bill that would nullify a previous piece of state legislation that currently prohibits health clinics that participate in Medicare (I.E. those in low income areas) from being eligible to offer abortions. He is being fought by Governor Rick Perry, Lt. Governor Greg Abbott, and the rest of Texas house republicans. Burnam believes, as Wendy Davis and the myriad of protesters around the state believe, that offering abortions as part of a healthcare plan is not only right from a political perspective but a medical one as well. 

With that clarification out of the way, let me say that I personally disagree with Mildred and agree with rep. Burnam. Firstly, abortions are frequently done for strictly medical reasons, as the life the mother is at stake if she were to carry the pregnancy full term. In these instances, such women are not currently able to get insurance coverage for the potentially life saving procedure that they need. Secondly, it is not the job of healthcare providers to impose their own political or religious views on the patients they serve. They are paid to provide a service in the name of their company, and if they disagree with the policies their company adheres to, they might be better served seeking a different employer. Thirdly, many women in the areas affected by the abortion ban are in a lower income socioeconomic bracket, and while a pregnancy may not put their personal health at risk besides general fatigue and malnutrition, the addition of a helpless child to their lives may push them below the poverty line or worse. Generally speaking, the quality of life for both mother and child is far lower if the mother is unable to provide than it would be for just the mother herself. 

Conservation Constipation: How Texas legislators are backed up and negating our parks

Texas has 93 state parks that are now in danger thanks to our government allocating funds meant for the Texas Parks and Wildlife to replenish gaps in the state's budget. Unlike other state agencies the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is funded solely from a tax on sporting goods, as opposed to other departments that are funded through general state taxes. While in theory it makes sense for a dedicated tax exclusively for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, in practice having only one source of funding leaves the department vulnerable when the state legislator poaches the funds to balance the state budget. State legislator poaching is exactly what has happened to an extreme extent recently, and Texas state parks are suffering for it. Unfortunately, being endangered is a familiar feeling for Texas state parks. 

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is celebrating their 50^th anniversary this year, but the first attempt at starting a state funded conservation effort in Texas was over a hundred years ago. Back then, funding was denied because no state law makers wanted to commit ongoing funds to a project that they felt had no definitive end nor greater purpose. Funds, both then and now, are used not only to acquire new park lands, but also more extensively to preserve and maintain the parks so that they may be enjoyed by visitors. This includes everything from general upkeep on trails to installing plumbing and electricity to newly established park centers, and like any other type of infrastructure, such facilities become dangerous to the public if allowed to fall into disrepair. Currently private investors and donations have allowed Texas parks to expand, but such generosity from the private sector can only do so much.

So why is preserving our state’s parks so important? Texas Parks and Wildlife is not only an important entity in enticing visitors to see Texas in a natural light, but also preserves wildlife in a safe habitat in their environment. State parks are home for many animals from salamanders to bears, without these parks they would be pushed out of their home and would not only create a nuance for families nearby but endanger Texas’s variety of native plants and animals. While it’s true the state’s parks aren’t in danger of being overrun by developers or businesses, as many would believe to be the biggest threats to the parks’ existence, that does not mean that the parks aren’t in danger at all. What good are parks that no one can access and appreciate, and how can we continue to protect the various species that reside there from illegal poaching and the like if we cannot afford to pay the park rangers? Yes, maintaing a balanced budget is important, but maintaing the natural beauty of our state is equally so. If we must take from funds budgeted to state departments, why not spread it around so that no singular facet of our state government suffers any greater than is necessary.

Death to the Urban Tumbleweed

Davis explores legislation regarding the plastic bag ban using the article “For Texas City, Plastic Bag Ban Brings Controversy” as his reference published on the Texas Tribune May 9, 2011. The Texas Tribune article discusses the proposition for Brownsville, which Austin recently adopted on March 1, 2013. Brownsville was the first Texas city to implement the bag ban in Texas, and Davis alongside many other Texans, believe that the legislation is “outrageous”. I disagree with Davis’s opposition to the bag ban and I feel that his article “Plastic Bags” focuses on the wrong issue regarding the law against plastic bags. Davis argues that it is an unreasonable dictation that is largely revolved around money. He also states that Texas is the only state to implement these laws which is false: California, Oregon, and North Carolina have cities that adopted similar legislation. The bag ban is not an issue of cushioning our economy, but preserving our city, and by proxy our planet. I find that there is no real argument against the bag ban with most people complaining that it is merely inconvenient, in which I will agree. I am outrageously forgetful and as a repercussion I am constantly forgetting my bags when I go grocery shopping. Yet instead of griping about the lack of a plastic bag, I push the shopping cart to my car and unload the groceries. If I am in a hurry, once I arrive home I will get a laundry basket to carry them in, but that’s it that is the end of my inconvenience, and to me it seems like a rather small price to pay in order to help reduce pollution. 

If there is any major frustration I find regarding the plastic bag ban it is that with it, many shoppers have decided to push the carts to their cars AND LEAVE THEM THERE! We shouldn’t allow these hooligans to run amuck in our civilized society, what if it hits my nice new Hummer and destroys the paint? I mean, I realize it’s a huge inconvenience to walk a maximum of 5ft to put it in the return lane, and after an exhausting trip of unloading my groceries in the car it seems unreasonable…

Trick or Treat Yourself to Some Inequality

"At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?” 

-Senator Leticia Van de Putte

Late this past Thursday night, while many across the state were celebrating Halloween with frights and fun, three Republican Texas judges did more to horrify Texas women than ghouls or monsters ever could. The three overturned a Federal block on HB 2, the bill that would, through a loop hole, shut down a vast majority of the state’s abortion care facilities. The Texas government needs to listen to its federal counterpart and strike HB 2 from the books. There are hundreds of women in Texas are confused, angered, and in need of medical care. It’s no surprise that even after Wendy Davis’ filibuster drama that the law is continuing to be debated. 

I both understand and respect the argument that is primarily religiously fueled, the argument that wants to protect the grace of life, but being unable to separate personal opinion and natural rights is the precise reason our country “vowed” to “seperate church and state”. I can not comprehend how it is still lawful to ban life choices that are denied by the church on the basis of it being unholy? Are those not the same principles our founding fathers fled England? 

Even ignoring the religious angle, the bill is still wrong. It is unconstitutional and vastly outdated that women are being told what to do with their bodies, yet try to take away a Texans right to gun laws and the government would be overturned. Both the arguments for owning firearms and being able to receive adequate abortion care hinge on a right to privacy, but for some reason state lawmakers care less about caliber a Texan man carries in his truck than they do what a Texas woman carries in her womb. It’s no secret that our society has a double standard when it comes to the sexes and their freedoms, but this is ridiculous.

Texas lawmakers need to respect all Texans’ right to privacy, not just those of Texan men. They need to, for the first time in the state’s existence, treat Texas’ men and women as equals. They need to listen to their female constituents and kill this bill.

What Constitutes an Amendment?

Recommendations: Texas Constitutional Amendments by Michael Quinn Sullivan details the nine proposed amendments for Texans that will be on the voting ballot starting today for early voters. Sullivan gives his opinion on each of the amendments on whether voters should support or oppose them when they are filling out their ballots. His audience is predominately right-leaning voters but is extended to any registered voter. Michael Sullivan is the president and CEO of the Empower Texans blog and it’s side project Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, which gives into the blogs right-leaning nature. I believe Sullivan's post is informative, while he is definitely biased for a republican agenda, he states for the readers the purpose of each amendment, and then goes forward to explain what both supporters and opponents say. I appreciate that Sullivan details each side of the amendment but believe that he could have further explained what each proposed amendment is intended to do.  

The sixth amendment which would appropriate money from the “Rainy Day Fund” to create the state water implementation revenue fund of Texas, that would help Texas in future droughts. Sullivan opposes the amendment, and while he does not give his direct opinion on it, he states that opposers of the proposal feel that it would be a mistake to allocate these funds in the event that Texas were to have a natural disaster and that it would hinder Texas borrowing money from the government. I personally support the bill and feel that the $2 billion is not going to deplete the “Rainy Day Fund.” This is the intended use for the fund, and I think it would be a mistake not to prepare ourselves for upcoming droughts that have devastated counties in our past. 

A Problem in Any Language

Lauren Franklin wrote an article for The Daily Texan aimed at current and future university students about the faltering foreign langue curriculum in America. Franklin is a linguistics and Middle Eastern languages and cultures senior from Sugar Land Texas who believes that the United States as a nation is comprising its future by not putting more importance into the foreign languages. She notes that only 15-20% of Americans identify as bilingual, where as with our neighbors across the pond 56% of the population identifies.  She continues to stress the importance of foreign languages and argues that our reliance on English makes it difficult for Americans to compete globally on both a linguistic and cultural level.    

While I agree with the importance of multi-lingual education that Franklin supports, I think she’s incorrect in her assertion that the majority of American students are disinterested in foreign languages. Maybe her status as a linguistics and foreign culture major have exposed her directly to many of the cultural biases our society has, but the majority of students I know are very interested in foreign languages because they want to travel, or they view them as romantic, or even because they want to do scholarly work on a global level. Unfortunately, most of these peers seem intimidated by the traditionally difficult rigor of the courses, or they have inadequate preliminary training in the language from elementary or middle school. I feel this is an important distinction that Franklin fails to make mention of in her article, since it shows that the solution to the problem lies in how we approach foreign language curriculum through all levels of education instead of merely heightened awareness. I appreciate that Franklin has brought this issue to the table, but I don’t believe she proposes an adequate solution in this article.      

From High School to High Stress

In The Texas Tribune's story Educators Taking New Approach to College Readiness, Jody Serrano discusses the Texas school boards' intentions for increasing the high school to college transition rate and readiness. Serrano investigates the issues in unprepared students, siting that the curriculum at the high school level does not match a college level expectation. This could lead to additional expenses for students who take more “remedial preparation classes” so they can adjust to the work load, classes which they still have to pay full tuition on even though they don’t count towards their degrees. In order to correct this, Harrison Keller, “vice provost for higher education policy and research at the University of Texas at Austin”, has developed a program called OnRamps, which offers incoming college freshman classes access to college level assignment and assessments along with tips and tricks for preparing for their transition.

I chose to highlight this article because it addresses serious concerns about Texas education both on the high school and collegiate levels. Texas high schools rank in the bottom quarter of the nation, and the studies referenced in this article illustrate why this is a major problem.