18 is too young

This blog entry is into response to my classmate, Mary’s “Why 21” blog entry.  I can understand the reasoning behind Mary’s argument and agree with the points that she made; however, I agree with the law.  Mary pointed out the fact that some of the reasons that it is illegal to drink before twenty-one years of age is because it is unhealthy and unacceptable.  Mary then states that it is not healthy at any age.  I agree it doesn’t matter what age you are drinking can be unhealthy, especially done in excess.  As for being unacceptable the only reason I can see that it is unacceptable is because you are breaking the law if you are under twenty-one.  Mary goes onto question why is a person that is eighteen able to vote, be in the armed forces, and be tried as an adult.  I can understand how it can be frustrating for a young adult that has just as many responsibilities, but not able to do everything legally a person can do that is over twenty-one. 

The reasoning behind why I feel twenty-one is an acceptable age has to do with the decision making processes.   According to the article on NPR, The Teen Brain: It's Just Not Grown Up Yet.  The article discusses how the frontal lobe is not yet full connected.  Some of the things the frontal lobe controls are emotional impulsivity and judgment.  Because of this I feel that a young adult’s judgment is not always the best and their decision processes may be impulsive, which is not a good mix with alcohol.   According to U.S. Department of Health & Human Services alcohol and drugs are a factor to 41% of motor vehicles  deaths for adolescents and young adults. . This is an example of the consequences of poor judgment.  Not only is judgment and impulsivity in question also the fact that young adults are more susceptible to addiction.  Essential the underage brain is more responsive to learning and addiction is a learned behavior. 

 

I am not saying you turn twenty-one and magically you do not have poor judgment and impulsivity.  In fact there is a chance your brain is still not fully developed, but with age you develop more insight which is connected with a fully functioning frontal lobe.

Groundwater Rights

Recently the Texas Supreme Court made its much anticipated, by farmers, conservationist and state officials alike, ruling on groundwater rights.  It ruled that the landowner legally owns the groundwater under their property.  This is the same idea used with oil, if it is under your property it belongs to you.   The law also states that the landowner may be owed compensation if state or local authorities have gone or go too far on limiting the amount of water the landowner can use.  One of the problems with this law is it does not define what  "too far" means.   According to Mose Bucele’s article in StateImpact Texas, Tom Mason, attorney, believes that we should expect that this ruling will provoke a flood of lawsuits regarding groundwater and owner’s rights

.

StateImpact Texas quotes Mason as saying, “Where you stand depends on where you sit I guess,” says Mason. “Depending on whether you’re a land owner who has a well who wants to sell water to a city that needs it, or if you’re a landowner who’s afraid that your well is going to grow dry, because your neighbors well is going to produce water that’s going to be sold to someone [else] during the drought.”  As you can this this issue is causing mix emotions among farmers and conservationist alike.

What does this ruling mean when Texas is in one of the worst droughts in its history?  J.O. Dawdy,   a farmer for 36 years, stated, “The aquifer is the lifeblood of this place,” “We’ve certainly got no interest in wasting it.”  However, conservationists are still concerned with the Supreme Court ruling and how it is going to affect Texas’ water supply.  Laura Huffman of the Nature Conservancy, was quoted by StateImpact Texas saying, “The state is counting in its water plan on 25 percent of the water to come from conservation.” she says. “Now, with groundwater, how do you incentivize private landowners to reduce their use of this resource?” 

Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword.  I can appreciate that this is a farmer’s livelihood and they have ownership rights to the water on their property.  I also can see how local and state agencies are concerned about water conservation and what this means to all Texans.  Right now it is too early to know the effects of the ruling; we will have to wait and see and hope for rain in the meantime.

Ultrasound Law

This entry is in regards to my classmate, Maria’s commentary on the ultrasound law, New Texas Law on Abortion .  I feel Maria’s argument was clear and concise.  I understand the point she was making, although I disagree with this new anti-choice law and I believe it was not established to help educate and provide patients with informed consent. 

I feel this is an attempt by pro-life activists to use intimidation in order to further their agenda.  Governor Rick Perry was quoted by DallasNews.com saying ““Today’s ruling is a victory for all who stand in defense of life.”  This is not a statement made by someone who just wants to educate, this is a statement made by someone with an agenda, and their agenda is to make it as uncomfortable as possible for a women to have the right to choose.   LifeNews.com quoted Elizabeth Graham, Texas Right to Life Director,  saying, “Our Sonogram Law is the best chance we’ve had in decades to take pregnant girls right out of Planned Parenthood and shut down their filthy, evil business. And Planned Parenthood knows this — they know the threat of the truth, of women looking through the window to the womb,” This is yet another example of how this law has little to do with education and informed consent and more do with taking away a woman’s right to choose.

I think all women should be offered the option to see the sonogram and hear the details if they choose to, not because the state chooses for them.  To me it seems that this law may go against a patient’s wishes by making it mandatory to hear the details even if they request not to.  If education is truly the intent, than health care providers need to find ways to inform their patients without using scare and intimidation tactics.

I agree that perhaps some women are possibly too flippant about the decision to have an abortion, but since it is legal, it is not our job to find ways to dissuade to them. 

Education

I realize that there are bigger fish to fry then worrying about the education of Texas' children.  With illegal aliens crossing our borders, same-sex marriages and the evils of Planned Parenthood who has time to worry about the $4 billion dollars being cut from education this year. Academic programs and transportation are being cut down to the bone.  Many teachers and support staff have been laid-off.  In Leander there are two new schools that were built due to overcrowding, sit empty because the district does not have the money to staff them.  Not only is this issue heartbreaking for the students it also affects the lives of all the dedicated teachers and support staff who have lost their jobs.  Many districts have tried to compensate for the cuts by having parents pay for transportation, sports, and uniforms.  In my opinion, this is fine as long as they can afford it.  The problem is many people can’t afford it and the children, our future are the ones who suffer.  The most affected districts are the low-income districts according to an article on NPR, lower-income districts are getting $800.00 less per student than wealthy districts.  

Why are we not using some of the $5 billion dollar rainy day fund?  Is giving Texas children a subpar education not an emergency?  How our educators expected to make sure students are grasping the curriculum when their classrooms our overcrowded and they do not have the support staff to help them.  My concerns are not for the self-motivated and bright students, but for the students who needs the extra help.  What will happen to them with overcrowded classrooms, due to the budget cuts in education?  These are questions not only should parents be concerned with, but everyone who lives in Texas.  I am certain we can all agree that children are our future.  We need to make sure our future is filled with educated adults.

What was Rush Thinking? He Wasn't!

If Sex is Outlawed, Then Only Georgetown Law Student Will Have Sex   written by, Eileen Smith, the editor of "in the Pink" political blog, is a funny and sarcastic look at contraceptives in the political arena.  Ms. Smith’s uses satire in her depiction of the most recent rant of Rush Limbaugh, radio host, which is clearly geared for an anti-Limbaugh audience.  The blog article also highlighted a ridiculous comment made by Cardinal Timothy Dolan regarding the holy war on contraceptives and she ended her piece with her opinion on Rick Santorum,  candidate for the 2012 Republican party presidential nomination.

Ms. Smith’s postings are meant for a like-mined audience.  There is no doubt when reading her various postings she is leaning to the left when it comes to politics.  The author uses her wit and sarcasm to engage her target audience.   She uses direct quotes by the parties in which she pokes fun at and to prove her argument, which is how utterly ridiculous their clams really are.  Ms. Smith’s posting do not provide hard evidence in defense of her argument, but what they do, do is engage the reader into finding out more about the issues at hand.  I know that for me after reading her posting I went an read other articles that were regarding the issues she had written about.  I believe the intent in her postings is to educate her readers on political issues in a light-hearted matter.  Her article is an easy read that gives a brief interpretation on, in this case, staunch conservatives views on birth control and other issues that are geared towards women’s reproductive health. 

Keystone XL

Michael Reeve's commentary article in Austin American Statesman, titled Stop dallying and approve pipeline for economy's sake tells the reader exactly what his point of view is.  Mr. Reeve’s intent is persuading his audience, like-minded people, that if we do not have the Keystone XL pipeline our economy will suffer even more than it already has.  Mr. Reeve’s credibility is strong amongst the commerce community, but seems to be lacking in the environment sect.

Mr. Reeve claims that the pipeline is safe which he uses quotes from numerous governmental agencies to substantiate his claim.  He also claims that it would create about 20,000 jobs and private sector investments of more than $20 billion.  With claims like that it is hard not to jump on the Keystone XL band wagon, too bad his evidence does not back it up. 

His article is written for an audience that does not need convincing.  He is preaching to the choir.   Mr. Reeve would have a stronger chance of convincing the opponents if he had quotes and evidence from environmental groups and agencies.  His’ safety evidence was lacking.  Letting the public know that the degree of safety is greater than typical constructed domestic pipelines does nothing for eliminating the fears of the environmentally conscious citizens.  A better way to argue in favor of the pipeline would be to let the reader know what the baseline is and how much safer it is compared to other pipelines.  Again, Mr. Reeve quotes the State Department “would not likely affect refinery emissions” in Texas.  Using the quote with not likely is of no comfort to citizens who are concerned with environmental issues.   

If you are in agreement with the Keystone XL pipeline you will find this article right up your ally.  If you are in disagreement with the pipeline the article does not provide strong enough evidence to convince the naysayers.

Planned Parenthood budget cuts

According to Jordan Smith's article The Destruction of Texas Health Care in The Austin Chronicle "The GOP crusade against Planned Parenthood is devastating basic care for Texas women (Smith)."  22 clinics have been defunded due to the April 1st, 2011 family-planning budget cuts.  The cuts will affect low-income and uninsured women from receiving basic well-women exams, including screening for, cervical cancer, breast cancer, hypertension and diabetes as well as receiving birth control to protect against unwanted pregnancies.

The prior 100 million dollar budge has been slashed to  38 million, because of this  only 60,000 out of the average 244,000 served will have access to care. The cuts have caused 11 Planned Parenthood clinics statewide to close—none of which provide abortion services.  Conservative lawmakers and the pro-life groups that support them were more than excited over the cuts “proclaiming that slashing the budget would cripple Planned Par­ent­hood, one of the state's largest providers of women's health care, and thereby bring an end to the "abortion industry (Smith)."  Even though Planned Parenthood abortion services only add up to 3% of all its services. 

The results are not only affecting the low income and uninsured they will affect all the taxpayers in Texas.  Cutting the family-planning budge and WHP funds will cause a strain on Medicaid.  “The Medicaid-waiver program is a great deal for Texas: For every $1 in state funding, the feds provide $9. In 2009, according to Texas' Health and Hum­an Services Commission, the program saved the state $46 million and averted 10,300 Medicaid births.  In 2010, the WHP served 183,537 women (Smith).”

Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life it is important to understand the devastating results of cuts to the family-planning budget.  These budget cuts not only affect Texas on a moral standpoint, denying access to medical care, but also a financial one.  By having these programs in place it saved the state millions.  Providing birth control to women who do not want to become pregnant will prevent abortions and unwanted children in the long run.

Works Cited

Smith, Jordan. The Austin Chronicle. 3 Feb 2012. Jordan Smith. 5 Feb 2012.