Commentary: Taking Culture Wars to the Toliet

In reviewing Jennifer Silva's article,  it focused on Target allowing transgenders to choose what bathroom they want to use.  Many people feel that it is unsafe for a male to use the women's restroom and the female to the men's restroom.  Some parents stopped shopping at Target because of this decision.  I thought the blog flowed well and Jennifer brought up some good points to think about. Her key point is that men who identify as women would have to use the men's room, in their dresses in heels, while those born as women and now identify as men have to use the women's room, with their beards and mustaches.  I agree with Jennifer that we should do whatever is going to be safe.

Transgender Directive

On May 13th 2016, the Texas Tribute published an article about the announcement of President Barack Obama new directive on transgender students.  The Obama administration instructed school districts in the country to let transgender students use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity.  The Lt. Governor, Dan Patrick disagrees and urges schools resist pressure from the government.  The Obama administration said they will withhold aid from schools that do not follow the directive.  Patrick feels that is a threat and will not stand to be blackmailed by the president of United States.  This will directly affect students that who rely on federal dollars for reduced cost lunches.  North Carolina recently had a debate that restricted transgender to access bathrooms.  Texas is now partnering with North Carolina to fight back.  Some wish Patrick were "as concerned with adequately funding public schools as he is with blowing up a non-issue”.  Many Texas leaders feels that Obama is intruding and this decision should be left up the to the state.  Obama directive stemmed from a Title IX, a federal statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender at education institutions that receive federal funding.  Joy Baskin the director of legal services for the Texas Association of School Boards, mentioned that this does not represent a change in what we’ve understood from those departments in the past.  Current guidelines from the association advise districts to handle situations on a case-by-case basis to find solutions that are acceptable both to transgender students and students and parents who may have safety concerns.  Joy brings a good point that these issues are not new.  

After reading the 5th blog from The unjust justice in Texas, I was shocked to learn that Baylor University’s answer to the sexual assault investigation was to beef up security.  A similar situation occurred at University of Texas and they felt like the answer was to add more security as well.  Should security just be the solution thats highlighted in article?  As I agree with Susie in that universities pull in millions of dollars of should definitely have a better process of education and awareness in place for the best interest of the students attending college at UT.  The blog flowed smoothly with an introduction followed by true life situations. The conclusion of the blog has a call to action statement that no one can ignore.  “Texas Colleges should not wait until last minute to handle crimes.  

On April 7th, 2016, the Texas Tribute published an article about a couple that experienced a situation of having to wait for nature to take it course in one of the most unforgettable ways.  As the Mahaffey’s prepared for their sons birth Taylor was diagnosed with incompetent cervix.  That day she felt like something was off and decided to the go the emergency room.  After arriving at St. David’s Medical Center and getting further evaluated it was discovered that Taylor’s cervix had prematurely dilated and their son’s legs were emerging out of the womb.  The doctors tried several attempts to keep the baby in the womb, but nothing worked.

In 2013, House Bill 2 was passed, which includes multiple abortion restrictions such as 20-week bans, admitting privileges requirements, ambulatory surgical center requirement, reporting requirements, and restrictions on medication abortion.  Due to Taylor being just shy of 20 weeks pregnant the state could not assist in inducing labor. It’s believed that a fetus at 20 weeks of age can feel pain. Therefore, the Mahaffey’s had to wait for nature to take it course.  The law allows abortions after 20 weeks if the mother’s life is in danger or fetal abnormality has been detected.  That wasn't the case in the this situation.  Taylor cried and waited three days as she felt her baby boy move around before finally giving birth to a still born baby boy.  

After reading this article I feel horrible to know that a couple went through the pain and agony over losing their baby boy.  The law doesn't seem to make sense.  I can’t imagine waiting three days to deliver a still born baby.  Imagine what that does to someone emotionally?  I  highly disagree with this law and think that situations like this need to be further studied to determine what is best for the situation, to a certain medical point.  The mother should not have to suffer and wait for nature to run it course. 

On March 10, 2016, Lize Burr posted an article on the Burnt Orange Report blog titled,  “Why Keep Secrets About Texas Women’s Health?”.  Senator Jane Nelson sent a letter to the Health and Human Services Commission Executive to explain that Texas women have more care than they have ever had before.  She firmly believes the authors choose to limit their research.  Lize refers to Senator Nelson’s letter to an aria and believes that women need and want to understand the details of what’s working and what is not working for Texas women.  

She makes valid points that the data that represents Women’s Health Program is  an important piece of information that needs to be understood.  She further explains how the Senate could build trust with Texas women if she provided a clear image of her way of thinking. 

This article is aimed for women or anyone that is interested in women’s health care.  In my opinion, the article could be arranged a little better.  At first it was hard to follow.  Paragraphs should be split to support ideas and help the flow of information. Acronyms should be listed after the word has been spelled out the first time.  

I agree with Lize that women in Texas should know or at the very least be aware of their healthcare options.  Most of time state leaders want you to believe that they don’t cut health care.  As unfortunate as it may seem it happens. She ends the article by stating that “trust and understanding are essential for a good government”.  This drives the point home to understanding what is, and what is not working for Women in Texas.

Cyber Attack!

The editorial, Hidden dangers — allowing more government snooping — lurk in new cyber security bill, argues that we should know what our government law makers are planning to do.  The purpose of  the cyber security Information Sharing Act of 2015 is to increase information sharing with the private sector to help prevent attacks on the nation’s cyber network.  The journalist,  as a part of The Dallas Morning News, claims the government should explain to the people why they are capturing this information.  

Although I don’t have much knowledge about this bill, I think the journalist explains the details to the best of their analysis.  The article shows supporting details by stating facts on the cyber network attacks on Sony Entertainment and the Federal Office Personnel Management.  At one point, in the article it states that the bill would reduce private companies liabilities and increase their incentives.  However, the paragraph that states that they “ had some big problems with the wording” is confusing and is unclear as to what point they were trying to get across.

I completely understand the reasons why we need higher security protocols for the nations cyber network.  Our nation has been under attack and it has put many of our citizens and businesses at risk.  Think about what would happen if our nations cyber network was compromised on a much higher level.  The outcome could be detrimental to our country.  I agree with journalist that the government should really consider the voice of the people and at the very least let be known what the government plans to do.   

State decides to end contract with Planned Parenthood

Julie Chang posted an article in the Austin American Statesman that reads “Austin lawmakers question why state cut HIV-prevention program”.  On December 21st the Department of State Services announced that the Plan Parenthood affiliate in Houston will no longer be receiving funds from the government.  This ended a 30 year contract and $600,000 received annually from the state to provide testing and care for HIV.  What is concerning to me is the fact that people rely on these services.  They were notified 10 days before the contract was due to end.  Who will serve the needs of the people that come to the clinic for care.  I see this limiting healthcare options for people that truly need it.  In the past, the state has also pulled other programs from Plan Parenthood.  Maybe the state feels that Plan Parenthood isn’t the best option for their funding.  While I agreed that the state should represent a program that promotes health and safety I don’t agree with the state canceling the contract last minute.  Think about if you just found out you were HIV positive and have no insurance?