Response to Isabel's post

I completely agree with Isabel's post "Caught in the Revolving door". The Texas jail, and prison systems are severely lacking. Not only is the inmate population heavy with the mentally ill, but the number of repeat offenders is discouraging. It is my opinion that the state budget for upholding mental institution and after care is a lot of the reason for the high concentration of mentally ill in jail. The requirements for admittance into those facilities are so strict that many who need care are turned away. A large majority of those turned away are incarcerated for various infractions of the law. Those that are not, are often found under our bridges and at street corners with badly constructed signs, begging for our assistance. In 2009, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, tallied that 25% of the nation's homeless population had a diagnosed mental illness.When widening their findings to all of the United States population, the result was only 6%. Many of these individuals would accept any help offered them, from treatment, to safe shelter. The issue is a lack of successful, state funded outreach programs. I'm not saying that this would instantly solve the issue, just that it would help to significantly cut down on those unstable mentally ill on the streets, and by proxy, in jails and prisons. Texas jails are set up in a way that it is very easy for mentally ill individuals to be incarcerated for anything for vagrancy to public nudity, and once they are in the system, its hard to get away from the "revolving door", and harder still to find steady shelter and a source of income. If we have any hope of fixing our current "system", then we need to start from the ground up. Start outreach programs, and rehabilitation centers for those just getting out of jail who do not have the benefit of family or even a place to live. With the help of these programs and others like it, we stand a chance at being able to see a significant decrease in the number of mentally ill on the streets, and in jail. As well as in those numbers of the mentally sound.

Blog 5: Sonogram Bill

Recently in Texas, Governor Rick Perry passed a bill called the "Sonogram bill" that requires doctors to give a sonogram to a woman seeking an abortion, and that the woman must also listen to the fetus' heart beat if there is one. The bill goes even further, mandating that if the woman declines this requirement, that the doctor must then give a description of the sonogram and found heart beat. Many argue that this process is a violation of the first amendment by forcing unwanted contact and dialog between doctor and patient. 

I, however, disagree with the entire bill. Abortions have been sought after and carried out for thousands of years. Until just a few short decades ago, they were performed in secret, and no one in polite society discussed or acknowledged them. An unfortunate side affect of them being held in such secret, was that they were highly dangerous for the woman having the procedure done. There was enormous risk of infection, serious injury, and were sometimes fatal to the woman. With the great advancement made in science to create safer methods of performing surgery, antibiotics, and pain medication, the health risks involved are largely reduced. I understand that every person is never going to see eye to eye with everyone else, and I support those who choose to keep an unplanned pregnancy, just as much as those who decides to receive an abortion. At the same time, I am also in the belief that woman will seek abortions even with the new laws, and my fear is that the harder the government tries to restrict them, the more dangerous they will become. (274) Maybe some people will change their minds about the procedure after hearing the heartbeat and grow to love the infant that is born, but I believe that those are the ones that would have lived in guilt for the rest of their lives had they gone through with it. My disagreement with the sonogram bill are for those that it would inconvenience, or offend, due to their personal or religious belief. If a woman has decided that the pregnancy is unwanted, then she has the right to have it removed without being forced to participate in unwanted and unnecessary dialog with the doctor or anyone else authorized to perform the process. Her decision stands with her, and she should not be judged or impeded by government in any way. 

An Opinion of women's outlook if Rick Perry is elected President

In this passionate blog post by Mean Rachel, she gives her version of possible events, and legislature change for Texas and the rest of the states, if Rick Perry is elected president in 2012. "Mean Rachel" is a democratic Austin activist who writes for the Huffington Post, as well as Universities in the Austin area. Rachel starts out the article describing what it was like in her experience to grow up having Rick Perry as Governor, and how she feels he has done nothing good for the woman of Texas. She then launches into a scenario of Perry enforcing, or trying to enforce abstinence instead of birth control.  Perry himself has admitted that his theory of abstinence has not seemed to make any improvements, but that he still backs it. He plans on putting forth laws that prevent insurance companies from covering birth control. That goes along with the new bill he passed requiring a sonogram and audio to be played before a woman can go through with an abortion. Rachel states her opinion that the abortion bill is Perry's way of "punishing" women for not abstaining from sex. Furthermore, if women opt to go through with the pregnancy, Mean Rachel reminds her readers that Texas is currently number one in the nation for adults without diplomas, as well as children without health insurance. As a last blow, the article states that these problems will only become worse as the infants born from this bill become older, first as uninsured children, and then an adult without a diploma.

Although Rachel has a very harsh and in someways over exaggerated view of Texas woman's future, I feel that she brings up some very good points. It is a widely known fact that Texas is number one in uninsured children, and has one of the highest percentages of people employed in minimum wage jobs. If Rick Perry is elected President in 2012, the bills that he has put into place have a very good chance of spreading, and increasing in their strictness. Making it harder to obtain birth control, and to receive abortions is only going to push Texas back to the days of back alley abortions, and speak easy style birth control: knock three times, slip a $20 under a door and pills come out a minute later. Other woman may choose to go out of state for a procedure, and take more money with them. It's a slippery slope that Perry has us sliding on and if changes aren't made, then the ramifications may not be seen until it is years too late to fix.

Is a state or city wide ordinance enforcing burn ban in times of drought necessary?

The Austin City Council is reviewing a plan, according to The Austin American Statesman, to make it an ordinance prohibiting open fires, grills, and smoking in parks, and not just a rule. The Editorial Board of The Austin American Statesman states that they feel just the rule is not enough to prevent people from having open flame in this time of drought. It is sited in the article that the devastating Bastrop fires were started by dry trees colliding with power lines, and that anything we are able to do to help prevent another incident of that scale is worth doing. The Editorial Board calls to city council members, as well as the community, to reevaluate the plans on what steps should be taken during a severe drought. Budgeting to involve tree trimming around power lines, grass that is more resilient, and the ordinance for smoking are the key points brought up.

I completely agree with the points made by the Editorial Board in this article. There needs to be more severe consequences for having an open fire in a time of prolonged drought than just a posted sign and the honor system. If there is no water is keep the grass and trees alive, then they need to be removed when it becomes a hazard. There need to be plans put in place to conserve water and save specific vegetation, such as trees, and bushes. However, it is understandable that some plants will die as a drought continues or worsens. The wildfires would not have been so widespread and devastating if the dead brush had not been as thick in key areas. Steps must be taken to prevent more loss of land, and especially loss of life. In the article it is mentioned that the community and City Council need to look at the "big picture", and I could not agree more. This is no longer about whether someones lawn is the best in the neighborhood, or if a family has delicious burgers on their camping trip. It has become about preserving the beautiful parks and wildlife here in Texas, and about saving people's homes and belongings. We can all do more to be more safe in this hard time.

Rick Perry backtracks on previous statements on Gay Marriage

A few weeks after the state of New York legalized gay marriage, Texas Governor Rick Perry, was quoted in an interview, saying "that's New York, and that is their business, and that's fine with me." Almost immediately, there was negative feedback from Texas' social conservatives. He was quick to backtrack and apologize for his statement. Going on to say emphatically that he believes that marriage is only intended to be between a man and a woman. He mentioned his fear that New York's new marriage laws will threaten Texas and other states. He was very quick, however, to mention that he approved other states having their own laws, including California's legalization of medical marijuana.
It is my opinion that Texas, especially in a county that prides itself on separation of church and state, that the political playing field is overly full of "socially conservative" politicians clinging to the staples of Christian religion. The state should spend its time worrying about Education or our severe water shortage, not where two men or women wish to spend their lives together.