Graduating = Option? I Don't Think So...

I felt the need to write a comment in regard to a recent post made by one of my wonderful classmates, Danielle. Like myself, Danielle wrote a post titled "Graduating is NOT an option" about the education system here in Texas, only hers had more to do with the graduation rate and less about the money. Danielle mentioned that Texas is the 2nd highest state with the most public school attendees, and ranks 43rd in the nation when it comes to the graduation rate. Talk about some incredibly depressing numbers, and sadly, this isn't news to me. What really surprised me was what Carrie mentioned in her follow-up response to Danielle's blog. She said that the graduating class of 2011 was the first class that had to take four years of math and science. WHAT?! Now paint me gold and call me confused (don't ask me where I heard that, ha ha), but your telling me that kids in Texas weren't required to take math and science classes EVERY YEAR they were in high school? This is ridiculously unbelievable to me, and now I can sort of understand why students here in Texas may be having such a hard time graduating. Danielle mentioned that Texans may need to shift their priorities from sports to things like math and science, and I wholeheartedly agree. Personally, I also believe that if public schools started teaching things like contraception and not just abstinence, more children would not get pregnant and be forced to drop out (in 2011, Texas had the third highest teen birth rate in the nation). Sorry, but I'm a realist, not an idealist. I agree with Danielle and Carrie, but unfortunately don't see the numbers drastically changing anytime soon.

Maybe We Should Put a Cap on It?

I recently read an article in the Austin American Statesman about a local private Christian school that is fixing to undergo an $18 million expansion project. This project consists of building an entirely new, three-story high school, expanded parking, and a multi-use athletic field. I have to say this whole thing sickens me a little bit. $18 million is a lot to drop on an expansion project, and while I know this money is coming from loans and family donations, it still seems like it ought to be going elsewhere. Now, I'm fairly certain as to why well-off families would want to send their children to private schools. I would assume that students face less distractions at private schools, and have more one-on-one time and interaction with teachers. I also know that the athletics tend to be better at private schools (and let's face it, we are in Texas!), but I don't know if I could stomach supporting and sending my child to a school that requires this much money to do a little expanding. Especially now, with the Texas economy in such bad shape, and funding for public education on the chopping block, it just seems wrong to me.

I would never expect a private organization like this to donate money to something like public education, partly because it's competition and mostly because the public school system isn't pushing the same sort of ideology it is. But I think it would be appropriate for the state government to step in and maybe put a limit on how much money can be spent on a "simple" expansion project like this, at least for things like education. It just doesn't seem fair, and while I probably sound like a whiny child right now, it IS important to be fair when it comes to education. So, I think it's time to start focusing the money on bigger, and better things. Like promoting equal education for all children, not just the rich ones. Because, after all, aren't all children equal and deserving in the eyes of God?

The Abortion Debate From Austin's Yellow Brick Road

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you Chloe for your post regarding abortion here in the state of Texas. This is something I feel incredibly passionate about, but chose not to write about this only because I felt it would be a significant feat to undertake :) It really is sad that we have to have these sorts of conversations, isn't it? Much like the whole gay marriage debate, this is a question on whether or not it's alright to intrude on one's privacy. It's really nobody's business.

Chloe brought up a pretty valid argument, one that has always been in the back of my mind but I've actually never put a whole lot of thought into. How can our governor so vehemently support the death penalty but oppose abortion? I guess the thinking is that those who are on death row "deserve" to die, and a fetus is innocent and has a right live. I get it, but I strongly disagree with it. I really appreciated Chloe putting this thought down into writing though.

Another interesting point that Chloe brought up, one that I had never even considered, was the data regarding the siblings of teen parents. This is something that I have actually never heard. Apparently, siblings of teens who have a baby are at a much higher rate to become a teen parent as well. Not surprising, but still very interesting to me.

One thing I wish Chloe would have talked about was how taxing it can be for a woman to carry a baby to term she has no intention of keeping. This is something the pro-lifers could come back and argue, that if a woman doesn't want a baby she should just put it up for adoption after it's born. I felt like this was an important argument Chloe should have brought up. People don't seem to understand that it's not that easy for a woman to simply go through all the motions of being pregnant and taking care of the fetus she doesn't want. Especially if the women has been raped. But that is a topic for another day. Just some food for thought.

Overall, I thought this was a very good, insightful post. I really appreciated the two, incredibly valid arguments Chloe made, and the ideology behind her stance on the issue at hand. It almost makes me wish we were in a classroom setting so I could actually hear Chloe, and my other fellow students, articulate their thoughts into words, rather than writing.

Texas' War on Women

I don't understand it, I really don't. I just can't grasp the logic behind denying low-income women the ability to acquire contraception and treatment for STDs along with routine wellness and cancer screenings. Well, there is no logic, that's the problem. The attempts of Texas right-wingers to ban a necessary and beneficial program to women are simply based off of "strong Christian morals" and political agendas. At least it seems that way, in my humble opinion.

The Texas Women's Health Program is a (mostly) federally funded program through Medicaid that provides about 130,000 low-income women with contraceptives, wellness screenings, and other care they may need in the state of Texas. There are eight Planned Parenthoods that participate in this program, and they account for about 40 percent of the services provided to these women. It is important to note that NONE of these Planned Parenthoods offer abortions. However in March of this year, Texas lost all Medicaid funding for women's health and family planning due to the implementation of a new law excluding Planned Parenthood from the program. And this was simply due to the fact that the Planned Parenthood program has affiliations with clinics that do provide abortions.

As a young, single, female college student I find this incredibly unsettling. I know what it's like to struggle financially, and not have the means or resources to be able to seek proper routine medical care. It's stressful to say the least, trust me. I realize that 130,000 women may not seem like a lot in a gigantic state like Texas, but that is 130,000 lives that will be changed, and not for the better due to them not being able to access birth control or health screenings. I understand that this is, for the most part, a far right, Conservative Christian state. I knew that when I moved here. But denying tens of thousands of women the ability to seek medical care simply because those providers may or may not have an association with an abortion clinic is ridiculous to me. Look, we all know Texas is a pro-life state, we get it. No one is asking to make it possible to have an abortion at your neighborhood Walgreens. We, like every other American I'm sure, just want access to some decent medical care. Is that so much to ask? Texas is already the state with the highest percentage of uninsured residents, and it's a sad sad day to me when we blatantly continue to increase that number.

Who you callin' a "numb nuts" Louie Gohmert?!

Lately, I have been finding myself reading more and more posts off of the blog, Juanita Jean's. I absolutely love it! Not only are the posts on the blog site cleverly written, but they also refer to interesting and important political issues circulating around Texas state and local government. The blogger herself is not a political scientist by any means, she is a hairdresser! But she brings up valid points, and in my opinion, a great ideology. She also seems to have a relatively large following.  I recently read a post titled, "Louie! No More Nice Juanita. Don't Make Me Call the Flying Monkeys. Seriously" and just had to share my thoughts on it.

The post is in regards to recent comments made by Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert calling Senator John McCain a "numb nuts" and also suggesting he has been influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood. McCain was under fire by Gohmert for criticizing him, and a small group of other Republicans, who are demanding that a senior aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton be investigated for having possible ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

What I really appreciated about this post by Juanita Jean's was that she mentioned the fact that Congressman Gohmert will be attending a magic show on August 3rd at his church, Green Acres Baptist Church, in Tyler, Texas. While there was a lot of sarcasm present in her writing, it was obvious to me that she was pointing out the apparent hypocrisy here. Isn't magic shunned by most fundamental church organizations? So wouldn't that mean that Gohmert is practicing or at least encouraging the devil's work? I get her logic. It makes sense to me.

I know this post wasn't directly related to Texas state and local government, but the fact that this was one of our state's own Congressman making these comments was just a little disconcerting to me. I would like to think of Texas as being more progressive and open-minded than this, but maybe we just aren't there yet.

Expanding Medicaid Benefits the Taxpayer Too

On July 13, 2012, Joseph Fishkin, an assistant professor at the University of Texas School of Law, wrote a commentary in the Austin American Statesman regarding Gov. Rick Perry's recent statements that Texas should turn down the money offered by the federal government to expand the state's Medicaid program. Fishkin explained the benefits of Texas expanding this much needed program, that tax payers in the state would be getting a very good return on what they would be forced to invest into this program. He brought up a very serious and valid point: that even if we do not take the money, other states will and Texans will still be paying for this program through their federal taxes. Fishkin maintains that our tax dollars will continuously flow out but we won't be getting our share back. In essence, we will be getting nothing for our forced investments into this program. He stated that expanding the Medicaid program would tremendously help lower-income, uninsured people (obviously) and argued that Perry's desire to turn down the federal funding is purely political. I completely agree with Fishkin. I have read several other articles concerning the expansion of the Medicaid program, and the statistics don't lie. So, even though Fishkin is merely stating his opinion (again, I agree with everything he wrote), he is using solid figures (Kaiser) to support his argument. It's apparent to me that while Fishkin is most likely writing to readers that agree with the healthcare reform, he is also trying to reach out to those who agree with Gov. Perry. Hopefully, a few will take heed to what he is asserting. He is, after all, a professor at one of the top law schools in the country.

You Can't Take the Death Penalty Out of the Texan

On July 10, The Texas Tribune came out with an article describing the change in drug protocol that will be used for lethal injections. The drug, sodium thiopental which is part of the three-drug cocktail used for executions, will no longer be available to purchase for lethal injection. Instead, Texas and other death penalty states will be forced to use the drug phenobarbital, which is also used in animal euthanasia.  I found this article interesting because of the way it explained how Texas was "scrambling" to find alternatives to the three-drug cocktail previously used for lethal injections. The author made it sound like Texas was desperate to find an alternative to guarantee that it would be able to carry out the 9 executions it has scheduled in the next 4 months. I am not against the death penalty, but I do find it a little disconcerting how strongly this state supports it.