Austin's Four-Legged Children

From the beginning the author of Gerrymandering Blues cleverly and effectively used a personal story to grab her readers in Pet Overpopulation Still a Problem in Austin.  After all who can rest the story of cute little doggies, especially during the holidays?  Once intrigued to continue reading she gets down to business and lets her readers know just how much of an issue overcrowding really is at the shelters. 700 lost pets since November 1^st? Wow!!!

I like that she gave a solution that would seem the most logical but then provided the actual outcome for cities who have enacted mandatory spaying/neuter laws.  I must admit she did lose me a little when she started talking about cats. Yuck! Kidding. The introduction of "cat mathematics” was a simple yet successful way of painting the picture of cats running all over the city  “370,000 cats over the course of 7 years!”  This made for an easy transition for her proposal to nearing a “utopian model for no kill cities”.  Overall the author did an excellent job at bringing up an issue many people might not think about.  And she closed it off with a feel good picture of her doggies and links to her sources. 

  

Don't Mess with Texas Women!

    

     First and foremost let me start off by saying that I am a true admirer of the miracle of life phenomenon.  I believe that women have been given an amazing gift by being able to bring life into this world.  But that’s just it, that is what I believe, and I wouldn’t dream of pushing my beliefs on other women or take away their right to choose.  So when I see articles such as Planned Parenthood is suing Texas over the Medicaid Removal I am baffled as to why legislators have taken it upon themselves not only to tell women what they can and cannot do but where they can and cannot get their pap smear.  Just WOW!

This violates Medicaid’s freedom of choice provision.  And I quote…

“States are not, however, permitted to exclude providers from the program solely on the basis of the range of medical services they provide. Under federal law Medicaid beneficiaries may obtain medical services "from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required . . . who undertakes to provide him such services." (Section 1902(a)(23) of Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the Act)) This provision is often referred to as the "any willing provider" or "free choice of provider" provision.”     

                                                               - Medicaid FederalPolicy Guidance

     The state of Texas claims that this move is due to the videos that were released earlier this year by an anti-abortion group alleging that Planned Parenthood was selling fetal tissue illegally.  According to Politifact researchers have used fetal tissue since the 1930’s.  And while I don’t condone the use of fetal tissue, I don’t think it is fair to skew facts to fit a political agenda.  These videos seem to conveniently come at a time that Texas legislature is on its path to completely get rid of abortion clinics.  The thing is that Medicaid does not even fund abortions unless they are medically warranted so this is just a stretch for Texas to use for their cause.

     But just who is Texas really after with all these legislative moves?  I cant help but wonder if this is all part of a bigger scheme at a time when birth certificates are being denied to children born to immigrants.  Below are demographics from PlannedParenthood South Texas’ 2013 annual report. 

    

     You can draw your own conclusions as to who would be the most affected by removing Planned Parenthood as a provider for Medicaid patients.  There are those that argue that this move does not reduce access to care and that other medical providers would be able to pick up the patient load Planned Parenthood would lose.  But these arguments only detract from what’s really going on. 

     This is just the latest of the legislative actions taken towards the women of Texas.  Because that is who truly suffers in all of these choices… Texas women!

Crazy Texans and Their Guns!

The recently passed Senate Bill 11, known as the “campus-carry” law will take effect in August of 2016.  It’s a given that whenever the issue of guns is brought up a heated discussion is almost always guaranteed. I give kudos to Give Me Texas or Give Me Death for bravely picking such a hot topic in Is Texas Crazy?  But while I have my mixed feelings about the campus-carry law, I can’t say I agree with the argument that “College students don’t take anything serious. You can’t trust them…. College students aren’t stable…..”  As a college student I find the argument somewhat offensive and demeaning.  At the age of 18 we entrust young men and women to protect our country by enlisting in the military and give them the right to vote but college students can’t be trusted?  Truly intrigued by the topic I went in search of some clarification for what this law really means.

Rep. Allen Fletcher points out some key components of the law:

• The bill requires a university president to adopt rules and policies regarding carrying a concealed handgun on campus. The governing board may amend those policies with a ⅔ vote.
• The university may adopt rules on policies regarding dorms and storage.
• The bill preserves the private property rights of private universities.
• The bill does not expand on who can obtain a concealed handgun license.
• Any locations that are off-limits off campus, such as bars and hospitals, remain off-limits.
• Open carry on campuses remains prohibited.

    The bill does not allow just anybody to walk on campus with a gun, only those that have a Concealed Handgun License (CHL).  My colleague points out “when has a rule ever stopped anyone? ……who are we to state for a fact that non-licensed students will respect the rules of this bill and not bring a weapon to campus.”  And she is completely right, when a person wants to commit a crime they will do so regardless of the laws put into place.  So prior to this law being passed if a student wanted to step on campus and open fire they were going to do it with or without a license.  

         Obtaining a CHL is no easy feat!  Some facts about obtaining a Concealed Handgun License as listed on the Texas Department of Public Safety:

• Applicants must be at least 21 years of age (unless active duty military) and must meet Federal qualifications to purchase a handgun.
• A number of factors may make you ineligible to obtain a license, such as: felony convictions and some misdemeanor convictions, including charges that resulted in probation or deferred adjudication; pending criminal charges; chemical or alcohol dependency; certain types of psychological diagnoses protective or restraining orders, and defaults on state or city taxes, governmental fees, or child support.
• An original (first-time) CHL applicant must complete four to six hours of classroom training, pass a written examination and pass a proficiency demonstration (shooting).
• The standard fee for an original CHL is $140. The standard fee for a renewal of a CHL is $70. However, Texas law provides for some discounts if you meet certain special conditions.
•  All Original CHL applicants are required to submit fingerprints to DPS as part of the complete CHL application.
• DPS will make every effort to issue your license within 60 days of receiving the completed application packet. 

 Since Texas is not the first to pass such a law, it would have been interesting to see crime statistics for the 7 other states that already allow campus carry.  Did they see an increase of student initiated shootings or an increased in gun-assisted crime?  

The Birds and the Bees

    While looking for an interesting subject to write about, I came upon a story on the Washington Post about a Texas High School with Chlamydia Outbreak.  Sadly the story at first did not surprise me; teenagers having sex, it happens.  The surprise came when it was stated that the only sex education given at the school was abstinence only education. REALLY?!  I was under the assumption that by now all schools taught their students about the consequences of having unprotected sex.  With all the stories on the news about citizens demanding change such as renaming schools with confederate-linked names, how are citizens not ensuring teens are set up for success with regards to sex education?

According to the Guttmacher Institute in Texas:

• -       Sex education is not required and if taught abstinence must be stressed. 
• -       Contraception is not taught.
• -       Communication between families about sex is not taught.
• -       Sex education is not required to be medically correct.

    Could the chlamydia outbreak have been prevented if teens were better educated?  There are those that may argue that by educating teens then we encourage them to go out and have sex.  And yes some will go out and do just that, but at least they will be armed with the tools they need to avoid contracting STDs or committing to a lifetime of raising a child before their high school graduation.  According to the TexasFreedom Network in 2011 Texas ranked 3^rd highest in the nation for teen birthrate and 2^nd highest in the nation for repeat teen birthrate. 

This is how we compare to the U.S. (information provided by the CDC):

The data speaks for itself!

    The good news is that Texas is gradually increasing sex education throughout school districts.  In just 3 years the percentage of school districts that adopted to teach abstinence plus (Information about contraception and condoms taught while still emphasizing abstinence) increased from 3.6% to 25.4%. 

    Texas is on the right track but we need to do better.  We need to focus on the issues that our really affecting our kids and continue to push school districts to address the topics that really matter!  While we put all this effort into renaming schools we are allowing the withholding of much needed information for our Texas youth. 

They deserve better!!