Planned Parenthood

I just finished reading my colleagues post titled "Planned Parenthood," and I want to start off immediately by saying that I completely agree with her position. Since Texas is currently a Republican state, it is no surprise that "we" are against abortions and Planned Parenthood clinics. I'm not entirely sure as to why we are against Planned Parenthood clinics, because they do offer so much more in the field of protecting women's health than just abortions, but that is seemingly the way it is. 


My colleague gives great examples of how we need Planned Parenthood clinics for the reasons that they help women if they have contracted an sexually transmitted disease, they provide low or no cost cervical cancer exams to patients who cannot afford them, and another reason, which I personally don't believe was stressed enough, Planned Parenthood also provides low or no cost breast cancer screenings to patients. Breast cancer has been such a huge problem for women and one of the main things that Planned Parenthood does is protect women by giving them these screenings; they are completely vital.


I understand that some people (Republicans) want to put Planned Parenthood out of business because they associate them with abortions, but what I think that many people fail to realize is that Planned Parenthood does so much more for women that just give abortions. My colleague gives great examples of why abortions should not be banned and I tend to agree with her and the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that abortions should be legal; however, I tend to agree with President Clinton more in stating that "abortions should be safe, legal, and rare." 


My colleague does a great job in describing why women might need to get an abortion in their current place in life and I personally don't think that I, or anyone else has the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body. All in all, I can't state enough how strongly I agree with my colleagues article; it was written very well and I agree that the state of Texas should take the hands out of the matter and leave the Planned Parenthood clinics alone.

We All Have Our Poison

The University of Texas at Austin has officially banned smoking on all their campuses. Now I am not a smoker myself but I do have a problem with them banning smoking from campuses all together. It's no surprise to me that the underlying reason for banning smoking was not out of concern for students health but out of concern for their bank account. Of course it has to do with money, and lots of it. Apparently The University of Texas at Austin receives about 30 million a year from The Cancer Research Prevention Institute of Texas, and now after banning smoking all together they can apply to receive 88 million from the CRPIT. Not bad if you ask me, but what about the students who smoke? The university created temporary smoking areas for the first year of the ban and is offering "quit support" to those who would like to stop smoking. Lets be honest, this might be a great deal for The University of Texas but for the students who smoke it sucks!

 Majority of smokers that I have seen keep to themselves and smoke where there’s not a lot of people around. Now there is occasionally a rude person who seems to be determined to give us all lung cancer through second hand smoke but the majority of people who smoke are quite considerate. We all have our poison, mine happens to be coffee and I cant imagine being told where I can and can not drink my coffee. I need it especially in the mornings. It would be awful to have to walk off campus to drink my coffee and then walk back. This is exactly what someone who smokes is going to have to do. I think some compromise should be made. They should keep the smoking areas and make them far enough away from the buildings but close enough so that students can stay on campus and smoke without having to leave. And as far as the “quit support,” I see no point in it. If someone is a smoker and is upset about UT banning smoking, chances are good they're not planning on quitting anytime soon. This is just UT trying to make themselves look as if they care about their students well being but the reality is that all they care about making money and prestige. Sadly money talks and even though it looks like the UT smoker is going to lose this in this fight, it's never too late to at least try for your cause.

Keep Austin Involved

I read "It is Time for Those Who Lead to Give a S***" by Melanie Warren. I have to start by saying that I'm slightly confused after reading this piece. Ms. Warren starts into her second paragraph by informing her audience about City Council meetings; how they are open to and for the public and even what day and time they are held. Directly afterwards, Ms. Warren then begs the question, "Have the people who are supposed to represent us become so inaccessible that it has made the average citizen apathetic and willing to be lead blindly because they feel they have no real choice, or for that matter a voice?" But I thought the "people who are supposed to represent us" are completely accessible? As stated in the previous paragraph, they meet openly for the public "on Thursdays, starting at 10:00 a.m." Also, I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that citizens are becoming apathetic because they find their Mayor and City Council members "inaccessible;" our citizens may have a sense of apathy towards voting and our legal structure but I would probably attribute that more to the fact that many of the citizens that reside in Austin are busy with their own lives to really take time out of their day to go to a 10:00 a.m. meeting.


One thing that I do agree with Ms. Warren on is that our citizens should probably know who our current Mayor is; personally, I did know that Lee Leffingwell is our current mayor but I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the idea that other people don't know that. I believe that the people who will be voting in the election for our Mayor will be educated on all possible candidates and yes, more people should probably be involved in voting on something as important as deciding who our mayor will be but I am still struggling with the idea that I am qualified to say what other people should spend their time on. 


As Ms. Warren starts to bring her writing to a close, she states that it is her belief that more people would become involved if our Mayor and City Council would "get off their butts" and engage the community. Ms. Warren also believes that our City Council meetings should be more accessible and entertaining and also that "teams" of people on behalf of our Mayor and City Council members to go out into our communities and engage them about topics of interest. Firstly, I remember from Ms. Warren's first statement about the accessibility of City Council meetings that they are easily accessible and open to the public; as far as them being more entertaining, I agree with Ms. Warren in that it is an optimistic thought...but I doubt it will happen. Secondly, I am wondering, who will make up these "teams" of people who will be going out to the communities and engaging? I assume volunteers would do this job because there is no way that the Mayor's office or City Council will be paying anyone to do this, but I also assume that there must be a lack of volunteers because if a group of people went up to the Mayor's office and stated that they would like to go out and engage communities about what is going on and what decisions he is making, he would welcome that with open arms....it's essentially free good PR.


All in all, I think that Ms. Warren made excellent arguments, even if I don't agree with them all. I very much enjoyed reading this post and look forward to more. 

Safe, Legal and Rare

It is quite known that I am not Rick Perry’s number one supporter. I would never use the word hate but I strongly dislike some of the things he has done over the years. The Texas sonogram law which has gained so much popularity recently is the new reason why I dislike Rick Perry so much. This law mandates that women who are seeking an abortion are required to get a sonogram at least 24 hours beforehand. Along with the sonogram, the woman seeking an abortion is required to visit with the doctor who is going to perform the abortion and be told about the baby that they are trying to abort. There are a few exceptions to this law; if the woman is raped or the child is a product of incest then the woman can opt-out sonogram requirement. Also, if the woman lives over 100 miles away from the clinic where the abortion is going to be performed, then the sonogram at least 24 hours prior no longer applies. The woman does not get out of the sonogram and the awkward discussion with the doctor aborting their child, but instead they just have to come to the clinic at least 2 hours prior to their abortion appointment to get all the details.

Is this really what we have come to? I mean, we get it, Rick Perry and his “good ‘ol boy” Republicans want to take away all rights that women have but now it’s getting a little out of hand. What right is it for someone to mandate that a woman has to get a sonogram and discuss her unborn child with a doctor at least 24 hours prior to aborting it/them/he/she? Rick Perry doesn’t have the ability to make abortion illegal (but sometimes I wonder if he’s ever heard of Roe v. Wade) but apparently, he is trying to make it as difficult as possible. Rick Perry believes that if he requires expecting mothers to get a sonogram before aborting their child, then it will pull on their heart strings and make them change their mind.

I tend to agree with Bill Clinton on the issue; “abortion should be safe, legal and rare.” I don’t’ necessarily support or practice my right to be able to have an abortion, but I do believe that other women who do, should be able to do so without this ignorant act. The Perry administration is actively attempting to force their beliefs onto us; it’s one thing for them to say that they are against abortions and do not support them, but forcing women to go through this process is flat out wrong. I bet Rick Perry wouldn't want his wife or daughters to ever be forced to do something they didn't want to do. Maybe he should think about that!

The Shameful Sonogram Act

I read a post from the Texas blog by “Mean Rachel” entitled “The Texas Shame Act.” Rachel’s blog is about the controversial Texas Sonogram Act, or rather about how it is being displayed to the public. Rachel has taken an issue with people becoming so upset with the act being referenced in a Doonesbury comic strip because she claims that “if the law is simply about “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?” Rachel takes the stance that it shouldn’t be such a monumental issue that Doonesbury used the sonogram law for one of it’s punch lines because in fact the law itself isn’t actually about “protecting the health of women,” and instead, it is “invasive, self-mandated shaming.”

I think that Rachel’s main audience is women who have an interest in the sonogram law because that is the main source of people who would be affected by this law. I also believe that Rachel is intending for anyone who is in support of this law to receive her message as well because from my understanding of who she is and her writing style, she would want the people who oppose her viewpoint to know how she feels about the topic.

I personally agree with Rachel and believe that the Texas Sonogram Act being referenced in a Doonesbury comic strip is not as big of an ordeal as some are making it out to be. Rachel references later in her blog that if comic strips like “Zits” can bring up women’s health issues in their comic strips then what difference is it if Doonesbury brings up this issue? I don’t see the difference and I believe that some people just like to make mountains out of molehills.

All in all, it is a very interesting blog post and is definitely worth reading. You may not always agree with what Rachel is writing but you have to at least give her credit for having an opinion and not being afraid to tell you and everyone else what it is. 

College Admissions and Antiquated Policies

I read an article from the Austin American Statesman about the issue of affirmative action and the “top 10 percent” rule in college admissions. The authors intended audience seemed to be anyone who had an interest in attending a college or university and wanted to know about the politics behind the admissions process. The article firstly addressed the recent court case in which the Supreme Court will be hearing about in their next term. A girl who applied to the University of Texas is suing because she believes that she was not admitted and that a “minority” student was admitted due to the fact that the other student was a “minority race” and not more or less qualified than she. The author brings up the 2003 court case that was heard by the Supreme Court where the Michigan Law School was being sued because they considered race as a factor when admitting applicants. The Supreme Court upheld that the Michigan Law School was constitutionally admitting students because they “had an interest in achieving diversity.” For the majority of the rest of the article, the author informs their audience about the “top 10 percent” rule in Texas which grants students guaranteed admission to any state supported college or university as long as they graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school class. The girl, Abigail Noel Fisher applied for admission in 2008; in the entering Freshman class of 2008 at the University of Texas, 81% of the students admitted were in the top 10 percent of their high school graduating class…which only leaves 19% percent for students who were not. The 19% consisted of 1,200 students and over 16,000 applied. Fisher was a part of the 15,800 students who were not admitted in 2008 and she believes that her race played a factor in that decision. Personally, I believe that when being considered for admission to any college or university race should not be considered at all; the decision to be or not be admitted should be based on your academic career, extra-curricular activities and ability to succeed in the college or university for which you are applying. I think that colleges should have diversity but not at the cost of denying admission to qualified applicants just because they aren’t of a minority race. The author is very credible, however I would have liked to see more of a stance at the end of their article. The author simply states “What we do know is there is no perfect college admissions policy. To reject one factor from consideration is to favor another.” While this is true, the author sort of took a neutral ground with their argument; I believe that affirmative action is an antiquated policy and that we need to start considering applicants based on their actual qualifications, nothing else.

Rick Perry Might Need New Boot's

I read the blog “In the Pink” by Eileen Smith and found myself unable to stop reading her post. She has quite an opinion but I find her to be extremely comical. The post I ended up choosing is called “Rick Perry Doesn’t See His Shadow, Crawls out of a Hole.” I think it’s safe to say that anyone who has been following the Republican primary thinks that Rick Perry’s an idiot; as if Bush wasn’t enough of an embarrassment to Texas. The post really emphasizes in a comical way, Perry’s lack of intelligences (I mean he’s an aggie what do you expect.) But on a more serious note, Perry has really damaged his image for re-election in 2014. He has not only embarrassed himself on a national level but he has also embarrassed the state of Texas.  Around 40 percent of Texas Republicans would prefer Perry to not seek re-election. Eileen states “The man’s more unpopular than the Komen foundation.” I thought that was just hilarious. This post is a must read in my opinion, it’s somewhat informative but if anything it will make you laugh (unless you’re a Rick Perry supporter.)