Sex Ed

I will be commenting on Abby's post on Senate Bill 521. Her post was informative, well-written, and logical. I also agree with most of her points. All in all she had a very strong argument speaking against SB 521. In the first paragraph, Abby discusses the cost of teen pregnancies in Texas, including cost to taxpayers, problems in health for the teen mothers and children, as well as the negative effects on children produced by teens. A startling fact is that Texas is ranked 4th in the country for teen pregnancies. With that being said, I actually disagreed with her approval of the current sex ed taught to Texas kids. It is barely comprehensive. From my personal experience, we were barely taught about contraceptives and basically told repeatedly that abstinence was the way to go. They also used scare tactics such as showing grisly photos of STDs to deter teens from having sex, as well as downplaying the effectiveness of contraceptives. (Ex. I had one instructor who told the class that even after his wife was on the Pill, using condoms and spermicide, that somehow his wife still got pregnant. Riiiiiiiiight.) But, regardless of our disagreement on the effectiveness of the current Sex Ed program, I wholeheartedly agree with Abby on the fact that SB 521 is a terrible idea. Having parents fill out a form so they can opt their kids in is nonsensical, as many parents forget or fill out forms too late. Many teens will miss an important opportunity to learn about sexual health.

City Ordinance on Banning Plastic Bags

On March 1st of this year, the city of Austin made an ordinance banning businesses within city limits to give out single use plastic bags, and instead may charge for bags (must be made of reused materials) or give out paper bags.There are several pros and cons to the ordinance.

Plastic bags are terrible for the environment. They can take from 20-1000 years to degrade, uses a ton of oil to make, ten percent end up in the ocean never to break down, and many are not recycled. The bag ban would lessen Austin's contribution to this issue. Reusable bags are more durable and carry more groceries, and restaurants can still use plastic bags for leftovers and whatnot. It also makes Austin unique and more environmentally sustainable.

However, this raises issues on government interference with daily life. How far is too far when it comes to regulation? Can a city just make a law without putting it through the state legislature? Another con is that if people don't wash their bags, this can lead to e.coli poisoning. Lastly, most people do reuse their plastic bags to line mini trashcans, use them to carry lunches/other things in, etc. Another argument is that it hurts businesses, as paper bags cost more to manufacture than plastic.

So while I support environmental sustainability and embrace using the reusable bags myself, the ordinance raises some questions on government interference and consumer and business rights. I am not sure the bag ban is going to last much longer, as there are already lawsuits pending and many consumer complaints.

Critique on a Classmate's indictment of Homosexuality

I will be critiquing your editorial on homosexuality and gay rights. I will start by pointing out that your article is more of an indictment of homosexuality itself rather than the lawfulness of gay marriage, which has nothing to do with government. For example, you said:

"When I watching “This Week,” I was simply dumbfounded when Karl Rove said that he could actually see the next REPUBLICAN president supporting homosexuality!! Never in a million years would I have imagined this world coming to this."

This is in no way evidence or logical reasoning against gay marriage, and is a clear example of homophobia outright. 

Regardless, gay marriage should be legal. In the Loving v. Virginia case of interracial marriage in 1967, it was decided that the laws banning interracial marriage be struck down. Chief Justice Earl Warren and the rest of the justices came to the decision that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia). To deny gays the right to marry is basically saying they are not equal to straights, and goes against the the fundamental concept of the Declaration of Independence. 

Most arguments against gay marriage are that it would desecrate the sanctity of marriage, the slippery slope argument, and lessen procreation. First off, marriage is not so sanctimonious these days, with the 50% divorce rate. And if the sanctity of marriage was grounds for the banning of marriage, wouldn't atheists not be able to marry? Or interfaith marriages? If gay marriage was legal, churches would still have the right to refuse marrying gay couples if so desired. Secondly, many argue that allowing gay marriage would open the floodgates to bestiality, incestual marriage, and polygamy. This is easily disputable. Allowing two people who love each other who are in a safe, healthy relationship does not hurt anyone, unlike bestiality or incest. Third, many argue that marriage is for procreation. If this was the case, older couples and sterile couples shouldn't have the right to marry either, as pointed out by Supreme Court Justice Kagan. This is absurd of course. Also, many gays have and start families through surrogates and in vitro fertilization. Children of gay families turn out just as well-adjusted as children of straight families, such as myself. It would also make it easier for gays to adopt. 

If we allowed gay marriage, it would actually strengthen the institution of family. More weddings means more money into the economy. Gay couples could finally have the same legal benefits as straight couples, such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. And finally, giving gays the right to marry would lessen the unfair discrimination they receive. 

My parents have been together for over 15 years, have a total of 6 kids, live in a nice neighborhood, and are committed to each other. They also happen to be a gay couple. They did not choose to be gay, that is just who they are. They have been waiting over 15 years and they deserve the right to receive the same benefits as straight couples.

Texas vs. Women's Health

There are many things that the Texas government does that frustrates me beyond belief, but the legislators' "War against Women" took the cake last fall, when Republicans cut women's health funding by 75% in order to "stop abortions" and contraceptives, targeted especially at Planned Parenthood. Several hundred thousand women (mostly low income) lost access to important women's health services, such as well-woman exams, breast exams, pregnancy and STD screening, birth control counselling, pap smears, and other important health services.

What were they thinking? Apparently, they thought it would be a good way to kill two birds with one stone: budget cutting and furthering their pro-life and anti-contraceptive agenda by encroaching on family planning centers' and women's rights. The fact of the matter is, they aren't making a difference in preventing abortion (only 3% of services offered by Planned Parenthood are abortion), they are ruining lives by limiting access to vital health services. 300,000 women will lose access to these services, resulting in 20,000 unwanted pregnancies (which would cost tax-payers $273 million.) Legislators either were too stupid to realize the ramifications of these budget cuts, or simply didn't care.

Seemingly, they wised up a little last month, and plan to add $100 million back into women's health by adding women's services to the state run primary care program. This is relieving, but leaves many still frustrated at the fact that lawmakers will do anything to prevent abortion, even if it makes everyone's lives worse. In my opinion, to limit abortions, lawmakers should focus on sex-education (not the unhelpful abstinence only but REAL sex education) and making contraceptives like the birth control pill cheaper and much more easily accessible to all women.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/texas-may-restore-some-family-planning-budget-cuts.html?_r=0
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_by_the_Numbers.pdf
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/20/140449957/gov-perry-cut-funds-for-womens-health-in-texas

The Daily Texan on Concealed Carry

On March 7^th, 2013, The Daily Texan published an op-ed on new proposed legislation that would make carrying concealed weapons on college campuses legal. The Daily Texan expressed the opinion that it would not be appropriate and that it would NOT be in students’ best interest. However, The Daily Texan was not completely biased, as they described an array of opinions on the subject, including public opinion. According to a poll from UT and the Texas Tribune, 48% of Texans support carrying concealed weapons on campus, 47% oppose it, and 5% are undecided. The Daily Texan also disclosed other opinions of public figures, such as APD Police Chief Art Acevedo and the President of The University of Texas express their disdain for the proposal. Texas House Republicans, such as Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio (who introduced the proposal) are supportive of this measure. In my opinion, I side with the Daily Texan and Chief Acevedo and belief it compromises safety to allow guns on campus. I would be very uneasy to go to class if people were allowed to carry guns on campus. 

The Daily Texan on Gay Marriage

The Daily Texan, UT's student newspaper, published an op-ed urging Texas lawmakers to remove the provisions from the Texas State Constitution barring marital status to same-sex couples. This is in response to state Representatives Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) and Garnet Coleman's (D-Houston) proposals that would reverse the 2005 amendments. The editorial staff vehemently supports this proposal, and provides a strong argument in support of it using statistics, court decisions in other states, and reason. 

Some of the editorials strongest arguments include the following:

From a survey in 2012 administered from researchers at UT and the Texas Tribune showed 33% of Texas voters supported same-sex marriage, 33% supported civil unions, and 25% didn't want any state recognition for same-sex marriage. 

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Prop 8 in California last year, finding that it violated the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The Daily Texan also points out that in March, the US Supreme Court is to review the ruling, and will most likely support that decision. 

Quoting the Circuit Court's ruling: 
"It is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman.”

These arguments are strong due to their factual information, as well as their use of reason and logic to back their opinion. I fully agree with their stance. The only thing negative I have to say about the editorial is that the likeliness of the extremely conservative Texas government to make any changes benefiting the gay community is highly unlikely anytime soon. 

School Security

On January 28th, KXAN published an article on proposed school safety measures, titled "Texas senators tackle school safety" . In response to the recent school shootings, the Texas Senate proposed several new measures that they believe will make schools safer. These measures include having teachers carry concealed handguns after undergoing state funded courses, or having at least one member of the faculty act as a "marshall", and a bill that would allow students to carry guns on college campuses. Another bill proposed would allow Texans to carry firearms publicly rather than concealed. While these new measures are not popular with Democrats, such as Sen. Kirk Watson, who is opposed to these measures, both sides can agree that making our schools safer should be a priority. Other ideas include having metal detectors installed or more security officers at schools. Another proposal includes possibly raising taxes to provide more money to go towards school security. While I definitely lean more on the side of having more security officers at schools rather than put guns in our teachers' hands, I do think this article is highly informative and gives both sides of the issue a voice.