It Should Be Their Choice

On March 6, 2012, Christina Valdez wrote about the new law in Texas requiring women to get sonograms twenty-four hours before their abortion.  According to the article, "Why Not Give it a Second Look", Christina feels that pregnant women are being selfish in not wanting to take the extra time to look at the fetus they are about to terminate.  As much I respect where she is coming from, I am going to have to disagree with her on this matter.

Like Steve Jobs, I am the product of an unwanted pregnancy and was also adopted by two loving parents.  You would think I'd be behind this law in full force and agreeing with Valdez, but it just isn't the case.  My birth-mother and other women who get pregnant, not wanting the child, know whether or not they want to carry the baby full-term and put it on adoption or if they want an abortion.

Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder of Whole Woman's Health, said, "We've had a lot of frustration, a lot of, 'Why do I have to do this?  I know what I want to do."  I agree with this and feel it is demeaning to women to force them to go in and look at the fetus they are knowingly going to terminate.  

Don't misunderstand me; I would never get an abortion.  I have always believed that everything happens for a reason.  My firstborn son was not only a surprise to my boyfriend and me, but he was a miracle and the best thing that ever happened to me, to us.  However, I believe a woman is competent enough to know what she wants, and I believe it is a woman's right to make the decision.  It is a slippery slope giving the government control on this matter.  In a few years, I feel the government will use this new law as a way to ban abortions all together.  Women have fought too hard for their rights, and this new law will become a setback for us.

Doubling the Interest

There is a big debate concerning the interest rate doubling for college students starting July 1, 2012.  The interest rate will go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on subsidized Stafford loans unless Congress extends the temporary rate reduction.  The reduction was put into place when George W. Bush was president in 2007, but it was approved by bipartisan.

President Barack Obama, and his presumed opponent in this year's election, Mitt Romney, does not agree with Congress in allowing this interest rate to revert back to 6.8 percent.   Although I am currently in college, I have to disagree with Obama and Romney.

The interest rate is not the real problem.  What the government should be focusing on and getting under control is the consistently rising cost of tuition.  According to the National Center for Education Statistics, "between 1999-2000 and 2009-10, prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board at public institutions rose 37 percent, and prices at private institutions rose 25 percent, after adjustment for inflation."  Obama should be focusing his attention and sense of urgency on the acceleration of these numbers instead of the interest rate.

The College Student Relief Act of 2007 was made to expire in 2012 due to the $6 billion annual cost to leave it at 3.4 percent.  The student loan debt is estimated at $1 trillion, exceeding the debt of credit card loan and auto-loan debt.  If student loans were not paid, taking into account the delicate state of our country, we could possibly slip into the "second coming" of the housing crash we experienced in 2008.  The focus needs to be lowering college tuition to an amount where 6.8 percent college loans are affordable.

Although I disagree with President Obama on this matter, I fully respect the intestinal fortitude he displayed on stage with Jimmy Fallon.

Second-hand Cancer

Alison wrote an article, Smoke And Mirrors, on the ban against smoking on college campuses in Texas.  I believe Alison wrote this article for other college students who are enjoying the freedoms of college life.  As much as I appreciate Alison's drive for individual rights for Texans, I do not agree with her statements declaring there is no concrete evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer.  Also, I do not agree with her frustration for smoke-free college campuses.

I was a smoker for 10 years, but I am ecstatic that the state has decided to put everyone's health before a smoker's convenience and made all campuses smoke-free environments.  Alison quotes and links an article stating, "Anyone can get lung cancer", which I completely agree with.  There are many different causes of  lung cancer, but to make it seem as though smoking does not have much to do with it seems careless.  The same article she quoted says, "Avoiding tobacco use remains at the top of the prevention list.  If you don't smoke, don't start.  If you do smoke, quit."  Avoiding tobacco is at the top of the list for a reason, and for non-smokers to completely avoid it we cannot allow smokers to puff away wherever they please.  The same article does state that 65% of new diagnoses to lung cancer patients did not smoke when diagnosed, but it also said "or quit decades ago" which means they did at one time.  Additionally, the article doesn't say anything about whether or not the 65% were exposed to second-hand smoke, but it does insist to "stay away from secondhand smoke".  

According to the European Respiratory Society, the tobacco industry has been trying to cover up and downplay the effects of second-hand smoke for quite some time.  In the 1970s, most of the research done on the affects of smoking and passive smoking (aka second-hand smoke) was funded by the tobacco industry.  "However, when the first conclusive studies started to provide decisive evidence that non-smokers' exposure to tobacco smoke significantly increases the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, the industry abruptly escalated its attacks, mobilizing all its firepower against the research and the scientist who had conducted it."

Due to these reasons, I have to disagree with Alison and side with the state that creating a smoke-free environment at all college campuses is a brilliant way to keep Texans healthier.

Plastic Waste

On March 2, 2012, Austin passed a ban on plastic bags at retail stores.  This law will go into effect in March of 2013 and will prohibit all retail stores from using disposable paper and plastic bags.  Mayor Lee Leffingwell has done a fantastic job pushing this ban onto the city of Austin.   Personally, I feel this is an incredibly, brilliant idea, and I cannot understand how people can be upset with this ban.  The only people I can see having the right to feel perturbed are the owners of the plastic bag companies, as they will lose a lot of money.  Although, it is common knowledge that time changes everything, and those not willing to change with it will get stuck in the past.

All over Austin, we see plastic bags on the side of the road, in lakes, in parking lots, etc.  This is an unnecessary litter we no longer need to spend time or money on cleaning up.  Reusable bags, which will replace plastic bags, are inexpensive and easy to carry with you.  If a shopper forgets to bring a reusable bag with them, most stores already have some available for purchase.  For example, Natural Grocers does not use plastic bags, and if you forget your reusable bag they will supply you with a box to put your groceries in.  After you have unloaded your box of groceries at home, you can either recycle it or reuse it for some other purpose.

Some people say this ban is extreme, and they argue that they reuse the plastic bags for such things as trash bag liners or picking up pet waste at the park.  I feel this argument does not make up for the 263 million plastic bags Austinites send to the landfill every year.

In 2008, six major retailers tried to keep this ban from coming to light by taking it upon themselves to lessen the use of plastic bags in their stores.  However, this did not work as there was not a significant difference seen in the use of plastic bags compared to the effort put forth.  Furthermore, recycling companies cannot take the plastic bags, as they damage their machinery.

Austinites, and hopefully all Americans in the near future, will come to realize what a difference this law will make for our environment.  Embrace this change and enjoy cleaner streets.

Women's Health Care

   On March 7, 2012, Charles Kuffner wrote an article within his blog, Off the Kuff, about Texans going on the offensive for women's health care.  Kuffner wrote this article for his fellow democrats asking them to help motivate people to vote in favor of keeping Planned Parenthood in the Woman's Health Program (WHP).  According to recent poll data, fifty-nine percent of Texans believe that Planned Parenthood should stay in the WHP.  If this is what the people want, why is Texas Governor Rick Perry and his fellow Republicans trying to get rid of it?

   

   In 2011, the Republican legislators consistently blocked and ignored numerous bills which would have kept the WHP from expiring on December 31, 2011.  "The program was only allowed to continue into 2012 based on a determination that its inclusion in the state budget constituted legislative direction to renew the program beyond 2011."  

   Planned Parenthood is where most low-income women go for health care.  Without the allotment of these funds for WHP, it would be harder for these women to receive contraceptives, cancer screenings, and other services that they need but can not afford.  The Women's Health Program received $111 million in 2010-2011, but these funds have been reduced to $37 million for 2012-2013 due to many legislative amendments cutting these funds.  Although Republicans argue this reduction of funds is necessary for our budget, the Legislative Budget Board projects this will result in 20,000 unplanned births and "an additional $98 million in state general revenue expenditures during the current biennium."  

  

   In his article, Kuffner quotes Republican Rep. Randy Weber arguing that the use of contraceptives actually increases the need for abortions.  Logistically, this does not make any sense, but the author also linked information to a study showing the opposite is true, Houston Chronicle.

   

   I agree with Charles Kuffner and all the credible information he includes.  I believe the Republican party is basing their actions on lies, and we need to share this information with more people.  Women should no longer be fighting for these rights, and we need to set things right.

Idly Occupying Austin

The Editorial Board from the Austin American Statesman published an article February 6, 2012, about Occupy Austin's eviction.  The authors' argument is that it was time for the Occupy Austin protesters to move on, as they felt their objectives for the movement were confusing.  Occupy Austin started its protest October 6, 2011, following the movement that originated in New York, Occupy Wall Street.  The movement began to try and bring attention to the ninety-nine percent of American citizens that are being taken advantage of by the richest of the rich, the one percent.  I feel the authors are writing to the public in Austin, not to criticize the movement, but to explain why Occupy Austin failed to express its prolonged purpose for camping out on the City Hall's plaza.  The protesters were no longer trying to help educate the citizens on their movement.  They were, however, costing the city quite a bit of money.  Apparently, it cost an estimated $800,000 to finance police patrolling at the plaza and to keep the area clean.  Also, most of the protesters that were camping out to support Occupy Austin were actually homeless, and they started making homelessness more of the issue as to why they were there.  The people of Austin, including City Manager Marc Ott, noticed this and decided to do something about it.  There is now a new city policy forbidding people from camping on City Hall's plaza overnight.  People supporting Occupy Austin, or any movement, can still protest at the City Hall, and I believe it does not violate their freedom of speech.  I feel the authors are sincere in their arguments against Occupy Austin in thinking it was time to evict the protesters.

Childhood Obesity

On February 6, 2012, the Austin American Statesman published a story by Lindsey Tanner, of the Associated Press, about how junk foods are widely available at elementary schools.  There has been a lot of media attention and campaigning to try and educate schools, parents, and children on the side effects unhealthy food is having on the youth but apparently to no avail.  The article states that a study was done between 2006 and 2010 with results showing 20% of elementary students as obese and about 45% of schools selling sugary and salty snacks.  This age group is far too young to be battling these issues, and the government needs to step in and implement policies and procedures to ensure our kids get healthier options.  It is our job as parents to get the government involved so that we may terminate the obesity epidemic.  For example, First Lady Michelle Obama has teamed up with a fantastic group, Let's Move, trying to help our children.  The schools could start by following the 5 simple steps to success they have recommended specifically for schools.  We need to help these kids, as they are not old enough to help themselves!