Sex Education is Important

When the truth is the truth, she speaks it loud and clear folks! "Vanessa Speaks the Truth" once again on her blog "Give me Texas or Give Me Death!" The great Vanessa brings up another very good point, and another very important topic that I feel like we should all discuss. She writes about sex education and how the parents in Texas are fighting for public schools to STOP teaching their kids about sex education. Many parents claim that their children "are too young to be learning about [sex]," and if anyone should be teaching children about sex, it should be taught by the parents themselves.

And I'm all for parents talking to their children about sex; I believe it will allow for a strong trust to develop between juvenile and parent. But a lot of the times it just seems awkward for parents to talk to their children about sex, and vice versa. So it seems that the subject matter appears to be left untouched by either participant. That right there brings up a question.... Have the parents in Texas seen the statistical analysis of Teenage Birth Rates in our State?

I feel it safe for me to assume a big fat NO because in 2013, Texas On The Brink (An official Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives) released information on how Texas ranks among the 50 states in the U.S. Statistics shows that here in Texas the "Teenage Birth Rate" ranks 3rd in the country. Which implies that the parents in Texas are very limited to sex education, the parents are too embarrassed to talk to their kids about sex, or perhaps it's the school system that lack the funds to teach Texas children. Either way, I don't believe the correct way to go about sex education for kids is to shelter them from the truth or be told to practice abstinence (which a lot of parents feel like it's the best course of action instead of making sure they are prepared for the inevitable).

Like Vanessa stated in her blog, "teens have a higher probability in getting peer pressured into doing something." So how are they to make the correct choice if they aren’t correctly informed?  Telling a kid, teenager, or even an adult to not do something because they shouldn't without any information as to why, is only going to influence them to pursue the thing they were asked not to do in the first place. That is just how kids work in general; the curiosity is overwhelming and learning it first hand sometimes just seems like the right thing to do, especially if they are informed very little.

It never ceases to amaze me that I find myself agreeing with Vanessa yet again on another very important topic. It's best to teach people about sex education at adolescents, that way they grow up to understand that sexual intercourse is no laughing matter and that it should be taken very seriously. I feel that the government of Texas should invest a little more of its resources into public schools, that way they can afford to bring in professionals that are well informed about sex education to teach kids about contraceptives, diseases, ect. If that were to happen, "the rate in teen pregnancy would drop, [adolescents] would be [better] informed... [and] it would reduce spreading STD’s."

 It's better to have them scared, prepared, and cautious now, instead of being scared and unprepared when a baby comes.

Texas Proclaims War against Women's Health

Here in the United States we are promised the opportunities of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That promised opportunity is actually a law that is called the 14th Amendment, which says that neither the State nor Federal law shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I for one strongly agree with the 14th amendment, and believe that no one should be deprived of our natural born rights as human beings. Ironically enough, the fact that the Governor of Texas Greg Abott feels differently, he recently announced that Texas will end Medicaid enrollment for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. Which to me seems a bit unjust, especially due to the fact there is no factual evidence!!!

Let me elaborate....

So it seems that Planned Parenthood has saddled up (filed suit) against the great State of Texas over its decision to debar the reproductive health-care provider from the Medicaid program. The Office of Inspector General (Stuart W. Bowen Jr.) at the Texas Health and Human Services Commission issued  a "termination letter" on October 19th, 2015 of Medicaid enrollment to the provider. The decision came after the anti-choice group "Center for Medical Progress" released videos that claimed Planned Parenthood providers profited off sales of fetal tissues, and failing to prevent conditions that would spread infectious disease. Stuart Bowen shortly after the release of the discriminating videos declares that Planned Parenthood is “no longer capable of performing medical services in a professionally competent, safe, legal and ethical manner.”

Therefore it is safe to assume that the case is closed, and Planned Parenthood is just wasting it's time, right? WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

Like I said in the beginning, Governor Abott has NO factual evidence to back-up his claims. The videos that were provided by the "Center for Medical Progress" supposedly proving the P.P. providers profited off sales of fetal tissues and that the company fails to prevent conditions that would spread infectious diseases turn out to be false! The videos turn out to be highly edited, recorded under false-pretenses, and are discredited by Planned Parenthood's attorney who states that the allegations against them are nothing more than just "trumped up justifications." Planned Parenthood charges the state with breaking federal Medicaid law under the Social Security Act, which ensures patients have a right to choose their own provider as long as that provider is qualified. The decision, “will cause significant and irreparable harm" to the provider and to the patients, who “will lose their provider of choice [and] will find their family planning services interrupted, and in many cases will be left with reduced access to care.”

Eliminating Planned Parenthood from Medicaid will save millions of dollars in federal funds. But as a result, at the very least more than 14,000 low-income women will be excluded from their trusted source of preventative reproduction health care that provides women with birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and so much more. This whole situation with Planned Parenthood and the state of Texas is probably mainly about religious beliefs, and whether or not abortion is killing, or justifiable. Albeit I'm not to entirely comfortable with the idea of  abortion,  but women (specifically the impoverished women) should have that option in a safe environment, rather than resulting in extreme measures that can cause severe body trauma, infection, or even death, especially if it's not done correctly.

People on Medicaid are already struggling financially, and a lot these patients are young, students, mothers, and people who probably work multiple jobs to make ends meet and face enormous hurdles to gain access to the best available health care. I imagine that Planned Parenthood provides a safe and comfortable environment for women in all types of scenarios; otherwise women wouldn't seek this company out, and would not have lasted more than 70 years in the industry.

"Vanessa Speaks the TRUTH"

Fantastic! Just simply fantastic! When Vanessa speaks the truth,
"Vanessa Speaks the TRUTH!" When I noticed that you and I both wrote about our opinions on the "Campus Carry Law," I quickly jumped the gun, (forgive my ridiculous pun) having no other choice but to indulge myself with your thought process. At first, I was actually expecting an opinion that went against my own, and was ready to shut you down with the blink of an eye! But then I couldn't help but notice that we both believe that passing a law which allows license holders to carry a concealed handgun throughout university campuses is a VERY BAD IDEA. I very much agree that students taking the law into their own hands could lead to an even more dangerous situation. I noticed that we both used very similar factual evidence to back-up our thoughts about this particular subject and couldn't help but find a smile on my face.

I very much enjoyed your opinion on the subject matter, and believe that you did a much better job on organizing your thoughts than I did. By keeping a good balance between facts, asked questions and your own notions, you were able to keep me hooked from the very beginning, and only wanting more when I finished. If only I had seen this sooner, I would've copied and paste it as my own work and turned it in!! I probably would have received a better grade in the long run!! Ha!

But in all seriousness, we as college kids are stressed about having to make good grades, keeping up with what's going on in class while simultaneously having worry about our jobs and the relationships we are in with friends and family! It's not a matter of "if," but a matter of "when." "WHEN" a student cracks under all that pressure, and just so happens to have a license for a gun, there's no telling what that student is capable of. I know that many like-minded individuals such as ourselves can agree that we don't want to live in fear every time we walk on campus where there's always a constant threat all around us. This bill only creates more unnecessary anxiety.

Guns on School Grounds Texas Style

So just recently, our Governor of Texas Gregg Abbott signed the "Campus Carry Law" on June 1st, 2015, which allows license holders to carry a concealed handgun throughout university campuses. It is said to go in affect in August of next year. Now, I understand how great of a feat this must sound for those gun-wielding Texas conservatives who are all gun-hole for the Second Amendment,(especially due to the fact that there are about 850,000 Texans who have concealed handgun license) but it makes me wonder if Gov. Abbott and the people of Texas understand that introducing concealed firearms into an EMOTIONALLY-HEAVY EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT could potentially cause an epidemic of mass proportions!! (Regardless of the best intentions of gun carriers of course) Yes there is the argument that having more licensed carriers who know how to use a gun on campus can prevent shootings, but what if that same person with good intentions accidentally kills someone innocent because the he/she looked suspicious: would it be worth it in the end?

So..................... with that being said, how's about I get into why I disagree so strongly with the new regulation set in place for next year; shall we?

Let's look back at the incident that took place at the beginning of just last month (October 1st, 2015) where an Umpqua Community College student (in Roseburg, Oregon) killed eight students and an assistant professor, and harming nine other people in the process. There were student witnesses in the room with the killer who claim that he asked multiple people what religion they affiliate themselves with before killing them execution style. The killer was assumed to be an anti religious, mentally-ill person with white supremacist leanings. Or how about the Columbine shooting that took place in 1999, where two students murdered twelve of their classmates, a teacher, injuring twenty-four others, and eventually killing theirselves. And if that has you thinking "oh but that would never happen here"  than that classifies you as IGNORANT because shootings like the one's above can happen in Texas and HAS happened in Texas. My last example would be the mass-school-shooting that took place here in our state's capital itself, Austin, Texas back in August 1st, 1966 at the University of Texas. An  ex-military killed eighteen people, and injured thirty-one others. Two of his victims being his wife and mother before he decided to go on a homicidal rampage that same morning; a man who was diagnosed with PTSD and also considered to be mentally-ill.

At this point you're all probably wondering why these shootings are ever relevant to the "Campus-Carry Law that I explained in the beginning. Well it's quite simple; these schools at the time did not allow concealed-carried firearms on the campuses and still don't to this day unless you are law enforcement officers. So imagine, if people can manage to sneak in firearms onto school grounds  undetected and shoot up the place, wouldn't the "Campus-Carry Law" allow students and strangers easier access to these kinds of environment and create similar or even worse types of scenarios? The University of Texas at Austin for example has about 800 academics who signed a petition opposing the gun law: There is even a professor who resigned his position at the university because he fears of the "risk that a disgruntled student might bring a gun into the classroom" and do harm to him and his students. That goes to show how potentially dangerous this law can be if not looked upon a little more carefully.

College is suppose to be a place where people can peacefully receive an education and experience new things. And when there are people who identify themselves with different partisanships (such as race, gender, religion, ect.) attending public schools with this law in-affect, they are more than likely going to feel de-humanized, always living in constant fear as to whether or not they'll eventually be targeted. There is a time and a place for everything, and sure, guns have their uses for good, but I still don't believe that should give guns the right to be conceal-carried on school premises to ensure the safety of the students and faculty.

Hilary Clinton's/ Fred Witzell's view on gun-control

While in search for another Texas Blog, I stumbled upon Fred Witzell's  "The Texas Fred Blog," a man who considers himself to be a highly opinionated and very CONSERVATIVE (and I do mean conservative to his very core) blogger. Although I cannot see me agreeing with most (if not all) of his post, and I normally find myself quite indulged with his writing for sheer entertainment! However, strangely enough his post about Hilary Clinton and her talk about possible "gun-confiscations" really caught my attention (probably due to the fact that I actually agree with most of what he is saying.)

Fred Witzell, on October 18th, 2015 writes about an article (written by FoxNews) that talks about how Hilary Clinton said that "mandatory buy-back programs like ones in Australia are "worth looking into."" And if she were to be elected for President in 2016, she would "impose gun-confiscation efforts." Despite Fred Witzell having some inaccurate information about Australia's rise in percentages having to do with crime rates, I agree that restriction and prohibition of private ownership of guns is the wrong way to go in the United States when there are more than 4.4 million people that support the 2nd amendment

It seems that America has a track-record of rebelling against policies that restrict the "finer things in life" (as people would say.) For example: The prohibition of the 1920's-30's was at first sought out to be a great idea for the United States, due to the concern of over excessive alcohol consumption and the many tickets that were given out for drunken behavior and unlawful sales of liquor. The U.S. ultimately decided to ban alcohol for moral and health reasons with the help of the 18th amendment of the Constitution. America did not seemingly consider the consequences that were later to come. The prohibition era saw the rise of organized crime, illegal smuggling of alcohol from Canada and Mexico, having a very negative effect on the economy. Eventually the ban on alcohol was appealed by the 21st amendment during the Great Depression when the economy was at it's worst.

The point I'm trying to make here is that even though the United States had good intentions for banning "frosty-cola's," the country suffered unnecessary consequences that could've been avoided if the leaders at that time made stronger regulations instead of dismissing the problem all together. If the future leader-to-be Hilary Clinton or any other Democrat that agrees with confiscation of weapons does not take their time to fiddle out the results or future threats, there is a strong possibility that "We the People of the United States" could have a 2nd Prohibition on our hands with even more dire ramifications.

The only way people improve and better themselves is by looking back at their own mistakes and learning from them. I guess in this situation the U.S. is ready to learn how if they don't allow the public to get their hands on something, the public will gladly cross borders to get what they need all over again! And if it takes the fact that they are loosing their tax money to other countries once again for them to realize what they are doing is ridiculous, then I say "have at it!"

An Editorial by "The Dallas Morning News," back in Late August of this year makes an argument that the city of Dallas should unite with the city of Austin in suing the state of Texas over "unfair taxation." The Texas capital (along with other cities such as Dallas and Fort-Worth) insist that there is a disproportional strain in taxes between residential and commercial property owners. It's believed that commercial property owners are benefitting from a state law that allows "equity appeals," ignoring actual market value and instead are based on whether similar properties pay lower taxes. Implying that commercial property owners can suggest to being taxed the value of similar properties instead of what it's actually worth.

After reading this editorial piece by "The Dallas Morning News," and carefully analyzing their words carefully, I have to say that I both agree and disagree with the dispute that they are trying to make. Unfortunately, because I have no prior knowledge in the difference between taxing commercial and residential properties, I can only manage to make a weak opinion for myself with the limited amount of information.

Reasons why I agree: When it comes to taxes, it seems that local, state, and even national government tend to favor businesses over homeowners. Because there are so many appraisal districts out in the world, any number of them are more then willing to fight to prevent from having to turn over sales prices of commercial transactions to the public, (for the right price of course) making it nearly impossible to receive accurate sales data. If the commercial property owners had nothing to hide, and were following the Texas constitution's "promise that taxation should be equal and uniform,"  they wouldn't feel it necessary to hide their data.

Reasons why I disagree: I don't believe that changing the state law that allows "equity appeals" will enable local governments the ability to lower tax rates and ease the minds of tax payers, for taxes are capped at an eight percent increase in revenue per year. Even though this occurs, tax payers already have the ability to demand elections that can rollback rates. Homeowners also have the right given by the Texas constitution to also use the equal and uniform rules to lower the value on their homes if they so choose to.

I guess it just all depends on which side you are coming from, and how high or low residents are being taxed, and whether or not they are willing to stand up and speak on behalf of themselves and their homes.

On Saturday, September 19th, 2015, the Austin American Statesman published an article about Stuart Bowen and his new approach to anti-Medicaid fraud. Unfortunately for the new Inspector General of embattled Texas health, Bowen inherited a federal investigation on Medicaid fraud and waste, having to deal with recovering the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars and reforming an office that is covered in controversy. He also has to "evolve Medicaid's landscape under the Affordable Care Act," a quest made complicated by Texas Lawmakers for undercutting the program. But as luck would have it, the Inspector General and the agency's new team has made progress over the last six months turning the department around by settling over 24 cases so far, recovering a total of nine million dollars.

I highly recommend my classmates and other blogers and readers of all kinds to have a look through this article for themselves.  affected by the Medicaid cut-backs. Stuart Bowen has gives hope that someday soon the Texas health agency will be back on it's feet, and give everyone that is in need of Medicaid and other health benefits the fair opportunity to receive help, and for tax payers to have what's only necessary taken from their checks. This article is also a good read on what is happening in Texas today and how it affects it's citizens.