What's a girl to do?

In her commentary “Women Just Can’t Win,” Ms Ag discusses the cancelling of federal government funds for women’s health care in Texas. The Obama administration’s decision to shut down funding was made in response to Texas government enacting an abortion funding prohibition. That is, Texas government wanted to stop federal funds going to women’s health programs that provided abortion services, namely Planned Parenthood. The federal government had warned that cutting out certain clinics because of specific services would endanger funding but the Texas government proceeded. The federal government found this to be a restriction of freedom of choice and decided not to renew funding to the Texas Women’s Health Program.

Ms Ag addresses Perry’s accusation that Obama cares more about abortion providers than the women who would be receiving care, when it was Texas who first put the restriction in the program. She also addressed the fact that Perry simply wanted to play by his own rules and now there is no federal funding. Despite both of these comments, the main focus of the commentary is the misfortune of this situation, and not placing blame on any one group. I feel similarly to this. Regardless of why the funding stopped, whether it be because Texas stood their ground on not funding clinics, or the federal government stood by their principals of freedom and fairness, the outcome is unfortunate for over 100,000 low-income Texas women.

Women’s health care has been a controversial topic, especially here in Texas, when regarding abortions. While many are strongly against funding going to these services, the fact is that many clinics that are now not receiving federal funds do not provide these services. And the ones that do also provide many other services to women that are unrelated to abortion. These other services include breast and cervical cancer screenings, birth control, hormone patches and other preventative medical care. The governor has stated that Texas will now be funding these services, however, he did not specify how this would be done. It’s hard to imagine how the amount and the quality of clinic care will keep up considering that until now, the federal government has been covering 90% of these costs, and Texas already faces many financial difficulties.

Although it seems like there isn’t much to be done about the issue at the moment, many women openly shared their thoughts on governor’s confidence about taking on this responsibility on his Facebook. They’ve since been removed but some of the more interesting and entertaining comments can be found here. Though they are humorous, the reality of this situation is much more serious. I agree with Ms Ag and say that I really do hope that Perry will deliver and keep up women’s health care.

Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to spare.

It's always frustrating to be told that we are not allowed to do something that we would like to do. However, personal sacrifices must sometimes be made for the sake of the environment and others who live in it. In the case of water usage, some Arlington citizens are not ready to make that sacrifice yet. Last Tuesday, at an Arlington City Council public hearing, the council planned to implement a permanent water restriction for the area. This would limit people to watering their yard using a sprinkler system to twice a week. During the meeting, though, there were several objections to this plan from Arlington citizens, leading the City Council to eventually reject the plan. I firmly believe that the City of Arlington should reconsider. Yes, people may feel that it is their right to manage their property, but this matter impacts more than the dissenters.

Due to Texas droughts, Arlington and most other Tarrant County cities had implemented Stage 1 water restrictions last August. During these restrictions, it was reported that the amount of daily water used went down by 8%. While this may not seem like much as a percentile, it equates to saving 35 million to 45 million gallons of water per day. This spring, some cities considered adopting permanent restrictions in order to prevent waste build-up as well as to protect water supplies. This plan would be expected to conserve 5% of daily water use. Penalties for violations of this plan would have been fines up to $500. The restriction plan failed due to lack of a second.

Prior to the City Council meeting to discuss the adoption of this plan, citizens had been sending emails and making phone calls in opposition to the restrictions. Once the meeting began, several upset Arlington residents shared their feeling on the matter. There were claims regarding the restrictions as "anti-American" and "outrageous." One particularly passionate citizen, Kelly Canon, made this remark:

"This is America. Why are we being forced and strong-armed into doing something that should be voluntary? I don't like being told what to do and what we can do in our homes and on our own property. It's insane."

I personally think the reaction of resistance is a bit overdone. Firstly, when I think of a American qualities, I think bravery, courage, perseverance, etc. None of which involves watering lawns. Unlimited access to a sprinkler system is not an amendment in the Bill of Rights. Being an American gives you absolutely no right to control one of Earth's natural resources. Somewhere along the way, people came to believe that being able to manipulate elements to our advantage meant that we should have all power over it. We forget that we are the ones dependent on the Earth. Deciding not to take the opportunity to conserve water could be a serious problem if future droughts occur.
Secondly, there are many rules that citizens must abide by that should be voluntary. People should voluntarily not commit crimes, voluntarily drive at a safe speed, voluntarily not litter. However, as we all well know, people don't always do what they should. There's a widespread shared responsibility among people. This causes us to ignore consequences of our actions because they don't make significant differences by themselves. However, if everyone takes up this self-serving mindset, negative effects accumulate quickly. This plan, similar to the situations mentioned above, was formed to benefit the environment and those who live in it in the long run, although it may not be ideal for an individual.
Lastly, this issue is not asking people to sacrifice much. While a potentially dry yard may not be desirable to homeowners, it is not an overly burdensome request.

As a group, citizens need to put aside their own preferences and seriously think about the impact of over using a limited resource. The council will later have opportunities to reconsider the topic, and hopefully, for the benefit of the community and the environment, a more constructive decision will be made.

Keeping it clean.

In her commentary on drilling for oil and gas, Avery takes the position that Texans should not enter into the practice of fracking. Fracking is a process used to obtain oil from deep in the earth. It is done by injecting a highly pressurized mixture of water, sand, and other chemicals down into the ground in order to release the oil and natural gas. Avery cites damage to the wellbeing of the environment as her reasoning against fracking. Before reading this post, I was unaware of the process so I had no firmly held beliefs on the issue. However, afterwards, I came to agree with Avery’s attitude.

I appreciate that her argument isn’t biased in order to persuade readers. By addressing both the positive and negative outcomes of fracking, readers can get facts and then make their own informed decisions rather than taking a position and only listening to facts that reinforce it. This is an issue that requires careful consideration because benefits would be almost immediate while consequences would be delayed. It calls for people to weigh present economic security with environmental damage in the future.  

I think the combination of poor economic times, high unemployment rates and the availability of a quick and easy solution are likely to persuade people to support fracking – especially citizens in the oil business. This would create thousands of jobs and bring business to surrounding companies. The consequences addressed include the possibility of polluted drinking water taken from the ground as well as general damage that this process inflicts. While the pollution of ground water has yet to be officially proven or disproven, the fact is that with fracking, it’s possible, and without fracking, it’s not.  

As Avery recognized, the benefits from this process would be large, but only temporarily so. This process would likely only survive for 15 to 20 years. It’s true that for the time being, many people would gain jobs but when the area no longer produced work, those people would be back in a job finding situation, along with many others in the growing population.

I acknowledge that it is not an easy situation to face, but people tend to look at immediate matters with less regard for long-term effects. Cases such as these (economic vs. environmental) are especially difficult. Financial matters directly affect people. They are more personal. People know immediately when they do not have enough money for their needs. Changes can also be sudden. People who lose their jobs feel the change right away and lifestyle changes usually take place quickly. The environment on the other hand has changed slowly over time. We don’t face devastating changes on a day-to-day basis. Maybe not even year-to-year. Negative changes in the environment steadily accumulate and rarely cause immediate negative affects, so people are less likely to pay close attention. There is also the problem of dispersed responsibility. People may not feel bad about leaving the water running an extra five minutes, not recycling, or not using renewable energy sources because they feel a single person doesn’t make that big of a difference. And this is true. One person is not likely to have a big impact but many people sharing this view do.

For all these reasons, I understand why this fracking opportunity would be appealing; however, as Avery said perfectly, “All of the money in the world can't repair certain aspects of the environment.” It's past the time that we start thinking about taking care of the Earth. It's time to start being proactive and making the right choices for the future.

The right to live or the right to let die?

In a story that has recently been brought to the attention of the Texas public by the group Texas Right to Live, a dying man whose treatment was determined as futile was taken off of said treatment, consequently ending his life. The use of this policy permitted by the Texas Advanced Directive Act (that has been in effect for almost thirteen years) is causing a stir with many pro-life individuals and groups who are calling for this act to be repealed.

In this specific case, Texas Right to Life director Elizabeth Graham has presented the story to the public in such a way that it would seem unnatural for someone NOT to demand that the act be repealed immediately. This is what I take issue with. Not because I’m against the right to life, but because this biased outlook ignores other factors that should be considered. This act has a purpose. While repealing it would satisfy our desire to feel we are doing the most for a person’s right to live, it would also have consequences. After all, acts dealing with matters as sensitive as life and death have been put into place for important reasons.

A more complete look at the story would entail a Houston man identified only as Willie, who went to the hospital with chest pains. The doctors diagnosed him with pneumonia and leukemia which he then underwent surgery and chemotherapy to treat. When a medical panel determined the treatments to be futile, the family was given an opportunity to find another health care facility that would take Willie in. When a facility was unable to be found within the 10 days allotted by the act, life sustaining treatments were ceased for Willie and he then passed from lack of nutrition and dehydration.

Graham’s pro-life rendering, which is quoted in many different reports of the story, is a heavily emotional one that stresses the heart wrenching aspects of it. She claims that the panelists decided that his life was not worth living and they disregarded the family’s pleas to continue treatment. It is easy for this issue to seem insensitive when it is looked at on this up-close personal level, and understandably so. It’s a natural human reaction to feel compassionate about a fellow human’s life; however we also need to look at the bigger picture from an objective standpoint.

The Texas Advanced Directive Act is a document explaining protocols to follow regarding issues such as patients’ medical and life wishes, who will make medical decisions if the patient is unable to speak for themselves, and in this case, the procedure to follow if doctors decide treatment can no longer save the life of the patient. This section is titled Procedure If Not Effectuating a Directive or Treatment Decision. Briefly, if a doctor feels that a patient has no chance of a meaningful recovery, he will discuss this with the patient’s family. If the family does not agree and wants more time, the doctor can refer the case to an ethics committee (or with a slightly more negative connotation, a death panel). The family is given a 48 hour notice of the committee meeting, may attend the meeting, and is afterwards given a written explanation of the decision that is made. If it is decided to discontinue treatment, the family is given 10 days to find another health facility to transfer the patient to. At the end of the 10 days, life sustaining treatment is discontinued. The details for this section can also be found here.  

These decisions are made only when the patient is terminal and there is no chance of recovery. The only options are to continue keeping people alive with machines or to withhold treatment. Stories that claim that doctors deem a person’s life as “not worth living” suggest that the doctors simply do not want to put in the effort to increase the chances of survival. If the doctor is at this point, there are no chances of survival left outside of the hospital. It’s true that continuing life sustaining treatment when the body cannot recover will extend life, but the body will start to shut down in other ways, only lowering the quality of life until death comes.

I believe the Texas Advanced directive act should not be recalled for three reasons. The first of which is what has previously been stated. Keeping a person alive through medical means when they could not survive otherwise will only diminish the quality of time that is left. It often becomes more painful and debilitating and organs and systems shut down or become out of sync. Operations or other treatments used in response become even higher risks. Many people who die in hospitals today after trying every treatment to stay alive are unconscious or are out of touch with the world because of strong doses of pain relievers. A second reason is that the price of these treatments that have been deemed by professionals as futile are extremely costly to the economy and medical field. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that 5% of those who die each year take up 30% of the $446-billion annual Medicare budget. And about 80% of that money is spent during the final month. This money is spent on mechanical ventilators, resuscitation and other aggressive care. More often than not, the aggressive steps taken to save someone’s life are futile. Also, as new treatments and procedures are developed, they get more and more expensive. As harsh as it sounds to turn a life and death situation into a financial matter, is it a problem, and a growing one at that. Something needs to be done to counter it. And finally, the citizens of the United States do not like to give up on living. There is a distorted sense of vitality amongst people. Generally, people don’t want to accept mortality and will do everything to ‘fight’ the ‘battle’ to overcome it. This becomes a problem when it comes to situations as Willie’s. Death is inevitable. Everyone knows it, but nobody wants to accept it. With this mindset, focus is put on unrealistic goals and not comfort and closure. By recalling this act, these beliefs are reaffirmed within people.

It is most important that people accept death as a part of life. Nobody wants to lose out on their own time or lose ones they love, however that isn’t in our control. And trying to take control just isn’t reasonable. The costs of finances, time, and emotions alike are simply too high.  Doctors who make these decisions are doing their part to help these patients. They can no longer successfully treat them and when that is the case, sometimes the best thing to do is for them to prevent any further harm. Groups such as Texas Right to Life may intend to help, but stigmatizing policies that are in place to facilitate one of arguably the most difficult times in life is only damaging.

Pictures are worth thousands of votes!

Charles Kuffner makes an argument for equal voting representation in his political blog. There is a radical difference between news reports of journalists and bloggers - namely how outspoken bloggers are about the topics at hand. Authors for newspapers that represent larger populations are constricted in what they say, whereas personally run blogs sanction blunt opinions. This is because the main task of newspapers is to spread information while blogs are tools of free speech.  Bloggers are not required to moderate their statements for the sake of others’ opinions. Blogs are also more passionate because their readers reinforce the author. If someone does not agree with a blog, they probably won’t continue reading it. Therefore, those who do read it will likely be those who agree and give praise. For these reasons, this blog appeals to readers' emotions and desire for equal opportunities.

            In Kuffner’s blog, he discusses his distaste for the pending Texas voter ID law. It is his opinion that the law is unfair and intentionally beneficial to the Republican Party.  This argument is based on the prediction that the law would disproportionately affect the poor, the elderly, college students, and minorities, (compiling a large percentage of the state’s Democratic Party,) thus making it harder for them to vote. Currently, Texas has a non-photo ID policy. This means that identification that a voter presents at the polls does not need to have a photo. The voter ID law would change the voting policy to require a valid photo ID to be presented in order to vote. Its purpose is to prevent fraud in the voting process. This doesn’t seem to be much of a problem until it’s understood that up to 18 percent of currently registered Texas voters don’t have a state issued photo ID to match their voter registration cards. With this new law, voters in the groups mentioned above would be more likely impacted, directly affecting the number of votes from the Democratic Party. A chart found on Juanita Jean’s, another political blog, shows how this law would heavily impact Democratic counties. Kuffner continues on to discuss why he thinks this law was specifically designed for Republicans’ benefit. He points out that some forms of identification, such as a college ID, would not be sufficient, while forms such as concealed-carry licenses are acceptable. He also points out that mail ballots (used more frequently by Republicans,) were left alone although that is an instance in which fraud can occur. In conclusion, he feels that the purpose of this law is, very blatantly, to reduce Democratic votes.

            I may not be quite as passionate as Kuffner, however, I do agree that this law would have an unbalanced, almost discriminatory effect. I can understand the want to improve the voting system, but I don’t think this kind of change should be made if it so drastically affects any one party and not the other. That simply isn’t fair representation. And it isn’t accurate representation of the state’s entire population if 18 percent of registered voters aren’t acknowledged. If a law like this is to be passed, steps should be taken to prevent the loss of votes. Reconsideration of what would classify as sufficient photo identification such as college IDs would help to retain voter numbers. Alternatively, the state could provide acceptable and easily accessible forms of photo IDs to those without. If the purpose of the voter ID law is truly to protect the authenticity of votes (rather than to deliberately prevent certain people from giving their opinions,) then surely there could be a more efficient way of accomplishing this.

"I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself."

I found Robert E. Lee's quote quite appropriate for this Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorial. In the article, the authors assert that Arlington council member Mel LeBlanc should forfeit his position after betraying the trust of his community by lying about his recent drug problem. Although he has completed rehabilitation, he broke the law and withheld the truth. The editorial was contributed to by the three editorial authors at the Star-Telegram, Linda Campbell, Mike Norman, and J. R. Labbe. Their final product represents the Star-Telegram's official opinion on the issue. Although the story focuses on an Arlington matter, I believe there are multiple intended audiences of this editorial. I believe that on a grand scale, it is for citizens of any community relying on public officials to be honest and honorable. More particularly, for citizens of Arlington, it is informative to voters about this particular situation. The authors clearly think that this man misled the public, and this story perhaps allows people to come to more informed conclusions concerning him. Lastly, I think it could be a reminder to public officials of all kinds that they have responsibilities to uphold morally and the public is counting on them for that.

            The argument is that, at least until the end of his current term, LeBlanc should step down. If Arlington voters decide to vote him back to his position, he should then serve rightfully; however, for now, he has betrayed public trust and should not continue. This is based on the judgment that LeBlanc violated the public’s trust four times. He used methamphetamine for 2 1/2 years before entering rehab. He first told police that he’d purchased drugs from single women and later admitted that they were prostitutes. When he first entered rehab in April 2011, he called City Hall saying that he was leaving for business in Europe for an unspecified amount of time. It wasn’t until May that he reported entering rehab, and even then, he was untruthful about the dates. In July, LeBlanc’s wife called police about drugs she found in his study days after being released from rehab. Although he is now open about his drug problem, he has avoided mentioning this event. In late December, the grand jury considered his case of unlawful possession but didn’t indict him. The four violations of trust were: 1) Breaking the law by purchasing a banned substance, 2) Consorting with prostitutes, 3) Not being truthful at all times with the people of Arlington, and 4) Being secretive about the police call.

            I agree with the authors’ assessment. The editorial opinion is based heavily on the belief that citizens have the right to truth about government, particularly when government is publicly appointed. This article is opinionated but is also reveals unfortunate truths. It has reinforced my beliefs that the public should be informed of serious issues that their representatives are involved in. While everyone make mistakes, those who make their living by representing others should be especially focused on making good decisions. Otherwise, there is probably someone else who would be better for the job. If any jobs need able-minded workers, government jobs do. When people are no longer fit to carry out their positions in the most efficient way, they need to take responsibility, which is only fair to those who have been counting on them, and do what’s best for the public. If that means resigning as in LeBlanc's case, so be it.

Where to draw the line?

There has been a lawsuit going on trying to solve the dilemma of accurately representing all demographics. On Monday, Texas attorney general Greg Abbott proposed a new set of district maps of the state's congressional and legislative districts. Groups would have to agree on the redistricting in order to proceed with the April 3^rd primary. Although the new districts were drawn to favor minority voters, many Democrats and minority groups still opposed them, feeling that Hispanic and African American would still not adequately be represented. Several parties have contributed to the compromise in hopes that the redistricting would settle quickly. Groups that support the new proposal say that the maps aren’t perfect but they are still satisfied with the increased opportunities, while opposing groups feel that the maps should be further revised.

The lawsuit not only affects the how peoples’ votes will be represented, but at this point, it is affecting who is considering running for state government positions. There are both possible House of Representative and Senate candidates who will base their decisions to run in future elections on the final district lines.

I think that this is an important issue to read about because many college students aren’t aware of the effects the redistricting has on an area after a census. While redistricting may not have a significant impact on some areas, others may experience a dramatic shift in political opinion. This story can be found at http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/06/3715967/disagreement-continues-over-texas.html