Why We Shouldn't Look Twice

             In the blog post “Why Not Give it a Second Look,” the author writes that the sonogram law is appropriate because it could save the life of the fetus. She relies heavily on the opinion of the author who’s article she wrote about, agreeing with many of her opinions.  I disagree with the author’s sentiment that a woman should be forced to view a sonogram of a fetus before terminating her pregnancy for a few reasons, and I disagree with the arguments provided  by both my colleague and the original author.

                The main reason that I disagree with the sonogram law is that it violates Doctor patient confidentiality and the Hippocratic Oath that doctors are sworn to uphold. This law forces our government to make a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor. If a doctor does not feel the need to prescribe a sonogram for his patient then he or she should not be forced to do so. If they feel that it would be more harmful to their patient, and are forced to prescribe it anyway, that is causing them to violate their Hippocratic Oath.

                I also dislike the methods both the original author and my colleague use to argue their points. The main issue I have, is that instead of using factual evidence or even moral guidance as a talking point, they chose to use guilt to influence the reader.  Using phrases such as, “Asking “mom” to sacrifice 24 hours is a lot less of an imposition than asking the fetus to sacrifice his or her life,” does nothing but make the reader feel like this is an obvious choice and they should feel guilty for thinking otherwise. This statement neglects to factor the mental and physical health issues that may result from this waiting period.  Perhaps a mother to be who feels guilty after seeing the fetus will keep the child even though it means accepting her own death and, if you are killing one to allow another to survive, you have defeated the purpose of the law. Many pregnant women may also experience severe emotional trauma which could have been avoided if they had not been forced to view the sonogram.  We have to assume that a doctor, who has taken an oath to do no harm to their patient, best understands what their patients’ needs are.  This is not a decision that our government should weasel its way into for the sole purpose of forcing a pro-life agenda.  They are hurting more people than they are helping.

                Another argument that both my colleague and the original author used was that we must take into account all of the wonderful things that are in our world because of children who had not been aborted.  The example that they used was Steve Jobs, whose mother decided to have him despite the hardships this would cause in her life.  The article does not mention whether or not Mr. Jobs biological mother ever even considered an abortion, which would be pretty important to their argument, and instead chooses to point out all of the wonderful things we may be without had he “ended up as an abortion.”  The problem with this argument is that it is so easy to reverse.  For instance, what if Hitler’s mother had decided that she was not ready for a child and aborted him as a fetus.  Would that have potentially saved the life of the 2 million Jewish people that he slaughtered and perhaps have prevented WWII? An argument that can be flipped so easily should be left out of such an important debate.

                The article that my colleague reviewed also implied that adoption was a prevalent alternative but that option is not without its trials.  America’s foster care system is overrun with children of all ages who are waiting to be adopted.  Many of them were turned over at birth only to be turned out on the street at the age of 18 with no training and no family to turn to.  For those interested in adoption, the process is rigorous and expensive, taking much longer than 9 months to complete.  This complicated process makes adoption a much harder trial than the author makes it seem.

I would like to see everyone picketing at an abortion clinic show that they mean what they say and adopt an abandoned child that a mother chose to have.  Unfortunately, what is more likely to happen, is that the unwanted child a mother was forced, or persuaded by guilt, into having, will grow up resented, unloved and not taken care of, or, be abandoned into an already overcrowded, state run, underfunded foster care system.

Besides the fact that the law is an invasion of doctor patient confidentiality, or that it goes against a women’s right to choose what to do with her body, there are many other factors that have to be considered in this debate. I would caution my colleague to talk to people on both sides of the argument and understand the consequences of both decisions. In all reality, no matter what we think, it is not up to us to decide what a woman chooses to do with her body and it is definitely not the government’s place.

Burn the Burnt Orange

In the article “Failing to listen to the echoes of protest,” the author describes how 18 University of Texas students were arrested for protesting in the lobby past 5pm. These college students were protesting the fact that the University of Texas collegiate gear is made in sweatshops. Although I understand the authors argument that the University is technically public property, I am not opposed to the students being arrested.  Although it was a peaceful protest, the University does have rules and regulations and they have to enforce those equally, no matter what their opinion on the subject may be.  My argument focuses more on the shame the University should feel at the reason for the students protest.

For as long as I can remember, I have been a fan of UT.  I grew up in Austin and, if you lived here you’d understand, it’s impossible not to catch the burnt orange fever.  Right now, I cannot decide if I am more saddened or angered by the fact that UT collegiate gear is made in sweatshops, under horrible working conditions, so that they can turn a ridiculously huge profit.  

How can a school that turns out some of the world’s best doctors, lawyers, business men and women and teachers all educated to be compassionate about the world around them, and yet at the same time promote the suffering of those who toil away to survive.  Is it because those in power are so far removed from poverty that they are able to ignore those in need?  Isn’t part of a college education learning to treat others equally, to be unbiased and not prejudice?  Do our university’s leaders believe that those working in the sweatshops are being treated equally or that it is fair to take such advantage of them?

To many who work in sweat shops, it is not as if they have the luxury to quit there job and move on to a new one. This job is their lifeline. They need it to survive.  So, they work the long hours, accepting a ridiculously low wage, because, after all, it is better than no wage at all. These conditions are deplorable and we should be ashamed that we are causing them.  We are directly responsible for the horrible lives those workers face because we buy the merchandise. I have nine UT shirts and two UT dresses in my closet and I don’t ever want to wear them again.  You can be assured that until the shirts are made in a worker friendly manner I will not be expanding my collection.

That may be what it takes to create a change; to make the people in charge of these situations listen. My nine measly t-shirts won’t do the trick but if everybody realizes, as I did today, that The University of Texas promotes sweat shop labor and stops supporting them by buying their merchandise, we can make a real change. As the infamous slogan says “What starts here, changes the world.” I am ready to make a positive change in our world and if it means burning the burnt orange, I am ready to light the match.

Up In Smoke

We are all free to choose what we do with our bodies, in this the author is correct, however the lack of recognition the effects of second hand smoking can have on non-smokers is astounding. While it is true that a person can live a healthy lifestyle and get cancer, I see no reason for that person chances to increase, no matter how slight that increase may be, because someone wants to light up. Even if cigarette smoking only accounts for less than fifty percent of lung cancer in the United States, if my risk of contracting it is raised, even in the slightest, then that is unfair to me.  For as much as smokers have a right to smoke, I have the right to breathe smoke free air.

                Another fact the author fails to realize is that, as citizens of America, we are free to do what we want however, business owners and managers are also free to disallow behavior they dislike on their property.  Bars, schools and churches have recently started voluntarily banning smoking in their establishments.  Because this property is owned or managed by them, they are within their rights to prohibit smoking in or on their establishments.  I appreciate these places taking precautions to protect my health.

                One of the most important things we should remember is that we are completely free.  No one can force us to attend ACC or to patronize a certain business.  If we do not approve of the rules of any establishment, we can choose not to support them.  We can choose not to attend classes at ACC and, instead, to take online classes so that we may smoke at our leisure.  Personally, I am not a smoker.  I am allergic to the smoke in the air and lung cancer runs in my family which makes me more susceptible to  contracting the disease from second hand smoke.  I appreciate that certain businesses value my health and will continue to patronize them to show my support.

                I do agree that this is not a decision that should be made by our legislature; however, the smoking ban in Austin was put on the ballot and passed by 52% of the vote.  While this is not a large percent it is still a majority.  Smoking was not declared illegal by the Texas government.  In fact, just this week, the University of Texas voluntarily banned smoking on their campus.  One of the reasons as quoted by Patt Clubb, vice president of university operations, was "This is an institution of higher education, so it's logical that we emphasize education, awareness..."  I am glad that this university, as well as our own college campus, recognize the effects that second hand smoking can have on non-smokers.

                If one does not agree with the decisions of an establishment, not only can they choose not to patronize said establishment but they can also vote.  If you passionately believe in something, then talk to your representatives and get it put on a ballot.  Find support in others who think as you do and get them to the ballot box. That is the beauty of democracy, if you don’t like something, you can actually do something to change it.

A Sad Day for Education in Texas

              Education in Texas has faced some turmoil in recent years and, as a college student, I feel that I must pay close attention to this issue.  State lawmakers have slashed funding from education yearly at great cost to local public schools and to the students who attend these schools.  Last year many public schools were closed because we did not have the funding to keep them open.  Rick Perry and Texas lawmakers refused to take money from the Texas Rainy Day Fund even though it could have saved hundreds of jobs for these teachers. “The Associated Press reported that up to 100,000 of the state's 330,000 teachers might lose their positions (Tan, Thanh).”

                Educating children is the future of our world.  We cannot afford to have children jammed into overcrowded classrooms to be taught by overworked teachers and expect good results for our future. Student to teacher ratios in the state of Texas are already high but now you are adding extra students to a class. This does not benefit these children in any way.  The teachers, who do well to make it around a normal sized class, will now have to struggle to find the time to actually teach their students.  In a state that regularly scores low in the national testing scores, it is a wonder that our lawmakers would approve such budget cuts.

                According to Nsenga Burton of “The Root” what is even more shameful is that Texas lawmakers, while agreeing to cut funding from public schools, have also agreed to “pay $25 million per year through 2022 to Formula One auto racing.”  This project is project to add 1,300 hundred temporary jobs to the Texas economy, which in no way offsets the more than 100,000 teachers scheduled to be laid off.  “A total of 100,000 teachers are being laid off while millions are invested in a sport enjoyed by extremely wealthy people (Burton, Nsenga).”

                Our legislature’s priorities are obviously misplaced as far as education in Texas is concerned. We cannot sellout future generations for the sake of entertainment.  In order to ensure the survival of our great state and country, education has to shift to one of our primary focuses.  Our children deserve better that the lot they have been given and I sincerely hope our lawmakers will consider them during the next legislative session.

What does the Keystone Pipeline mean for Texas?

       The Keystone Pipeline extension has been debated since its proposal in 2008.  As Many politicians argue that it would promote job growth and boost the economy while others, including environmental scientist, argue that it would desecrate our natural resources and pollute “vital water sources” (Dave Montgomery).  In order to make an educated decision on any topic one must examine all of the facts so I started with job growth.

            Would the Keystone Pipeline actually promote job growth?  Well, initially the answer is yes but once the pipeline is built, these jobs will disappear.  This, paired with the fact that they want to build the pipeline so quickly, ignoring the environmental impact, means that these jobs would not be sustained for a long period leaving us much in the same situation we are currently in.  “According to TransCanada’s own data ,  just 11% of the construction jobs on the Keystone I pipeline in South Dakota were filled by South Dakotans–most of them for temporary, low-paying manual labor (Tar Sands Action).”

            Another argument for the Keystone Pipeline is that it would reduce America’s independence on foreign oil.  In all reality, the oil that comes through the pipeline from Canada is slated to be sold in the foreign oil market. In some areas like the Midwest this could actually raise the price of gasoline. “Canadian companies backing the Keystone XL…. actually expect it to supply more lucrative Gulf Coast export  markets as well as raise Midwest oil prices by reducing “oversupply” in that region”(Clayton, Mark).  The president of TransCanada, Alex Pourbaix,  was asked by Democratic senator Ed Marky if TransCanada would consider selling only to the United States “so that this country realizes all of the energy security benefits your company and others have promised.”  Mr. Pourbaix said he would not. There is also evidence that the Keystone Pipeline would not significantly increase the amount of oil transported to the United States from Canada.

            The environment is also an important part of this debate.  Not only will the pipeline have a negative impact in many fragile eco systems, such as the Nebraska Sandhills, the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers and the Ogallala aquifer as it is being built but greenhouse gases emit by the refining process are also considered harmful(Tar Sands Action).

            This Pipeline is dangerous to our economy and our environment.  The way land is being taken through Imminent domain to use for the pipeline also makes it dangerous to our freedom.  In his article Texas becomes a battleground in Keystone XL pipeline controversy, Dave Montgomery does a good job of presenting facts and opinions from both sides of the argument.  I believe this article was written for people seeking honest information given from both sides.  While I personally believe that promises of job and economic growth are grossly overstated and that the pipeline will damage our environment, I appreciate that the author took no personal liberties of his own and tried to provide an unbiased report.

Women’s healthcare in America has recently taken some major blows. It seems like we don't have time to strike down one law before certain republicans are proposing another. For instance, just this month republican Darrell Issa convened a hearing to discuss President Obama's “directive that health insurers provide access to birth control.” During the hearing, not only were no women allowed to speak, but they would not hear from any of the democratic witnesses either. Instead they listened to catholic priests, bishops and ministers, all male, to decide what is best for the women of our nation. As a women, I am outraged by this chauvinist attitude.

More recently here in Texas, an article was written by Jordan Smith of The Austin Chronicle about Texas government's war on Planned Parenthood. In Texas the Women's Health Program (WHP) provides “basic healthcare and family planning services to low income and uninsured women who would not otherwise be eligible for Medicaid unless pregnant.” Out of the 160,000 WHP providers in the state of Texas, Planned Parenthood services 46% of these women. This number has grown every year since the WHP has been enacted. If we eliminate Planned Parenthood as a provider for WHP, that will leave 86,000 underprivileged women uninsured.

I believe this article was written for any individual who would like the government to stop taking money from important funds like the WHP. Funds like the WHP benefit many Texans and it would be unfair to our impoverished community to strip them of what little aid we give them. Any Texas who cares about the unfortunate would find this article interesting.

The author, Jordan Smith, establishes credibility with the reader by given them statistics from previous years. These figures all show that the WHP has helped thousand of women in past years and that these figures increase annually. She also establishes credibility by providing a link to both a letter written by the centers for Medicare & Medicaid protesting the new rule, and a link about the “gutting of the family planning program.”

I believe the authors claim is factual, logical and important. It is time we take a stand against frivolous government spending and put that money towards solutions that that are useful. Yanking healthcare from women who have no other means to visit a doctor is shameful. We need to take better care of our citizens.

MLA

Smith, Jordan. "R.I.P. WHP?." The Austin Chronicle . Austin Chronicle Corp, 23 Feb. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2012. <http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs/news/2012-02-23/r-i-p-whp/>.

            The article I read is about the Occupy Austin movement and the recent arrests and rule changes that have affected them. Occupy Austin has been going on since October 2011 and is a smaller version of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Last Friday night, February 3, 2012, Austin police arrived at Austin’s City Hall Plaza at 9:45 pm and informed the protestors that they must vacate the premises by 10:30 pm. According to Austin’s new rules, no one may inhabit the plaza between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am.

            Many protesters left willingly but some resisted. Five arrests were made for criminal trespassing. Protesters were upset by the aggressiveness of the Austin police force. They reported being attacked by police with batons as the began to march down I 35. They were also disappointed that they were not given 24 hours notice to vacate.

            Occupy Austin is an example of people acting so that their government pays attention to what they want. These people are sacrificing hours and days of their life to “speak out” against what they feel is government hypocrisy. We, the USA, are a nation governed by the people and that is why this movement is so important. Throughout history, change on a large scale has often occurred when the population speaks out. So many Americans are raising their voices against our government supporting corporate greed that change is bound to occur.

            In the end, it doesn’t matter whether or not we agree with this movement because this is our democracy at work. Those that disagree are welcome to form their own coalition in opposition to Occupy Wall Street. I think this is an important article because it is describing history in the making. One way or another the people will prevail and I am excited to be part of it!