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.