Senate Bill 1259 is a much-needed protection for people trusting in their health-care providers. This bill would make it illegal to inseminate a patient without their explicit consent. Let's be honest though, how ridiculous is it that laws are needed to define fertility fraud illegal and as sexual assault. Although, I think it is ridiculous for sexual assault perpetrators to only have to serve 6 months-2 years in state jail with the potential of up to a $10,000 fine. This light sentence is ridiculous for sexual predators, and especially in this situation where they are all but condemning an unconsenting woman to carry and parent their child.
I had no idea that fertility doctors using their own sperm instead of the consented-to and agreed-upon donor's sperm was a common problem. I genuinely thought that health-care providers were more trustworthy (and a vast majority probably are) but this greatly diminishes my trust in them, and I'm sure many other people's trust as well.
The positive aspect of this bill is that it helps to establish the need for clear, explicit consent. It also helps to establish legal codes of conduct for some health-care providers with whom women should be able to trust in vulnerable situations.
Thursday, May 16, 2019
Punishment should fit the crime (Blog #5)
The Texas prison system has been in the media a ridiculous number of times recently and is facing issues of disciplinary quotas, falsifying records, and palliative care controversy among many other controversies and critiques.
One of the major issues in all of this is that there doesn't seem to be enough external oversight for the prison system that would help to decrease these abuses of power. There is an argument for more ombudsmen that would help with mediation between inmates and more restrictions and oversight of Texas' prison system. But, the most important thing to consider is the fact that the Texas justice and prison systems are inherently self-serving, they manage both the supply and demand of the operations.
Texas' prison system is the "biggest prison system concocted by any free society in history. " It grew exponentially through the 1990's as a way for cities to add jobs and reap the economic benefits of new prisons as well as for them to become financially dependent on these systems.
Because of the drive for nice looking statistics, and cost-cutting care practices, many inmates who are supposed to be afforded basic human rights simply aren't. Texas had the largest inmate population in the country (as of 2017) and if Texas is incarcerating that many people, those people deserve basic, enforced rights. Unfortunately for cities whose economies rely on the prison systems, through diversion programs the inmate population has dropped, and will hopefully continue to.
In summation; Texas needs to support at-risk citizens, especially youths, with better diversion systems and needs to enact major prison system reform to be humane, fair, and to limit the abuses of power that have put it in the news so often.
One of the major issues in all of this is that there doesn't seem to be enough external oversight for the prison system that would help to decrease these abuses of power. There is an argument for more ombudsmen that would help with mediation between inmates and more restrictions and oversight of Texas' prison system. But, the most important thing to consider is the fact that the Texas justice and prison systems are inherently self-serving, they manage both the supply and demand of the operations.
Texas' prison system is the "biggest prison system concocted by any free society in history. " It grew exponentially through the 1990's as a way for cities to add jobs and reap the economic benefits of new prisons as well as for them to become financially dependent on these systems.
Because of the drive for nice looking statistics, and cost-cutting care practices, many inmates who are supposed to be afforded basic human rights simply aren't. Texas had the largest inmate population in the country (as of 2017) and if Texas is incarcerating that many people, those people deserve basic, enforced rights. Unfortunately for cities whose economies rely on the prison systems, through diversion programs the inmate population has dropped, and will hopefully continue to.
In summation; Texas needs to support at-risk citizens, especially youths, with better diversion systems and needs to enact major prison system reform to be humane, fair, and to limit the abuses of power that have put it in the news so often.
Threat of Eminent Domain (Blog #8)
Henry Y's post about eminent domain in regards to the border wall was interesting. I had no idea that there were 350 filings for the federal government to seize land under "eminent domain".
I agree that states should have more control over state land and that citizens should have absolute control over ownership of their land.
The issue of lower-than-actual-value compensation for property is also a major issue and doesn't take into account money made off of the land. Eminent domain is often approached as buying parcels of land for the value that one would receive if they were to sell them. With so many rural areas in Texas where people are reliant on farming and livestock the seizure of their land, even with compensation, couldn't cover the whole value that they could have made from the land.
The other aspect of lower-than-actual-value compensation for the land is that the last time land was seized by the federal government for border construction, "Homeland Security cut unfair real estate deals, secretly waived legal safeguards for property owners and ultimately abused the government’s extraordinary power to take land from private citizens." This post references this article which explains the issues of the past that are causing citizens to be apprehensive about more border-wall construction.
I think it is pretty safe to say that if President Trump is willing to declare a fake national emergency to push the building of the border-wall and is still struggling with it's funding, then there is a good chance that people will not be fairly compensated and safeguarded as the government seizes citizen's land
I agree that states should have more control over state land and that citizens should have absolute control over ownership of their land.
The issue of lower-than-actual-value compensation for property is also a major issue and doesn't take into account money made off of the land. Eminent domain is often approached as buying parcels of land for the value that one would receive if they were to sell them. With so many rural areas in Texas where people are reliant on farming and livestock the seizure of their land, even with compensation, couldn't cover the whole value that they could have made from the land.
The other aspect of lower-than-actual-value compensation for the land is that the last time land was seized by the federal government for border construction, "Homeland Security cut unfair real estate deals, secretly waived legal safeguards for property owners and ultimately abused the government’s extraordinary power to take land from private citizens." This post references this article which explains the issues of the past that are causing citizens to be apprehensive about more border-wall construction.
I think it is pretty safe to say that if President Trump is willing to declare a fake national emergency to push the building of the border-wall and is still struggling with it's funding, then there is a good chance that people will not be fairly compensated and safeguarded as the government seizes citizen's land
Critique: Texas Vs. The World (Blog #6)
Jaz Pintar's post "Texas Vs. The World" is about alternative energy versus fossil fuels. The post is concise and touches on the individual and state economic situation that alternative energy may cause.
While economic effects are important when considering switching to alternative energy, there are much more important issues. Economically, switching to jobs that require more training and specialization not only improve the country's economy but will also improve the state's. Moving towards jobs that require more education and specialization has improved many other state's economies and leads to a healthier economy that is not reliant on finite resources.
Another issue is that Texas is 4th (out of 50 states) in economic health, but 1st in hazardous waste creation. The oil industry is helping the economy, but at what cost? Living in urban areas, we don't have to reap the disadvantages of major oil industry pollution, yet. If we keep producing and using fossil fuels the way that we have, there won't be an issue of "who" it affects to switch to alternative fuels, it will be a necessity for survival. Even if the environmental effects aren't convincing enough, the economic reality of relying on finite resources should be. To have so much of an economy be reliant on a finite resource is setting Texas up for failure, at least with alternative energy the jobs from production would stay intact because alternative energy isn't finite and it would allow us to use more of other natural resources that won't be as polluted or toxic.
The state of Texas' economic health, while heavily reliant on the oil industry, is becoming increasingly reliant on the tech industry as more and more people are moving to Texas' urban areas. I believe that alternative energy and moving the economy away from reliance on a finite resource is the best way to serve Texans, because otherwise, Texas is looking at several environmental, financial, and humanitarian crises.
While economic effects are important when considering switching to alternative energy, there are much more important issues. Economically, switching to jobs that require more training and specialization not only improve the country's economy but will also improve the state's. Moving towards jobs that require more education and specialization has improved many other state's economies and leads to a healthier economy that is not reliant on finite resources.
Another issue is that Texas is 4th (out of 50 states) in economic health, but 1st in hazardous waste creation. The oil industry is helping the economy, but at what cost? Living in urban areas, we don't have to reap the disadvantages of major oil industry pollution, yet. If we keep producing and using fossil fuels the way that we have, there won't be an issue of "who" it affects to switch to alternative fuels, it will be a necessity for survival. Even if the environmental effects aren't convincing enough, the economic reality of relying on finite resources should be. To have so much of an economy be reliant on a finite resource is setting Texas up for failure, at least with alternative energy the jobs from production would stay intact because alternative energy isn't finite and it would allow us to use more of other natural resources that won't be as polluted or toxic.
The state of Texas' economic health, while heavily reliant on the oil industry, is becoming increasingly reliant on the tech industry as more and more people are moving to Texas' urban areas. I believe that alternative energy and moving the economy away from reliance on a finite resource is the best way to serve Texans, because otherwise, Texas is looking at several environmental, financial, and humanitarian crises.
Class C Arrests? (Blog #4)
This article by Grits for Breakfast is a great post about "epidemic" Class-C misdemeanor arrests in Texas. Grits for Breakfast (I'm assuming this was who wrote the post since none of the posts list an author) has a history in politics and political journalism and has maintained this blog since 2004. He has been working in criminal-justice reform in an effort to secure legislation and reform in the Texas justice system. He seems to be a very credible source with lots of experience and sticks to more facts than most blogs I have read.
This article is, and should be, directed towards anyone with an interest in Texas politics. The article itself states facts and statistics with no blatant skew or bias.
I agree with this reform in Class-C misdemeanor (warrantless) arrests. I never realized how many people were arrested for Class-C misdemeanors; which don't even include a jail sentence. This not only seems completely useless and unjust but it wastes taxpayer dollars and officers' time. Judging by the 57% decline in these types of arrests, I would say that Austin did have epidemic levels of warrantless arrests before the new policies were put in place to reduce the arrests. Unfortunately, the rest of Texas still has a problem, with warrantless arrests totaling 30,000 in a year within 12 of the 25 largest counties in Texas. These numbers only reflect warrantless arrests and leave out other things like traffic stops that lead to felony charges. I believe that it is unjust to conduct this level of arrests for Class-C misdemeanors because these arrests were being abused as ways to search a citizen's vehicle.
Texas should set priorities to lower unnecessary arrests, whether it be for traffic violations or possession of small amounts of marijuana. These unnecessary arrests waste taxpayer dollars and diminish the trust in public safety officials, especially in officers.
This article is, and should be, directed towards anyone with an interest in Texas politics. The article itself states facts and statistics with no blatant skew or bias.
I agree with this reform in Class-C misdemeanor (warrantless) arrests. I never realized how many people were arrested for Class-C misdemeanors; which don't even include a jail sentence. This not only seems completely useless and unjust but it wastes taxpayer dollars and officers' time. Judging by the 57% decline in these types of arrests, I would say that Austin did have epidemic levels of warrantless arrests before the new policies were put in place to reduce the arrests. Unfortunately, the rest of Texas still has a problem, with warrantless arrests totaling 30,000 in a year within 12 of the 25 largest counties in Texas. These numbers only reflect warrantless arrests and leave out other things like traffic stops that lead to felony charges. I believe that it is unjust to conduct this level of arrests for Class-C misdemeanors because these arrests were being abused as ways to search a citizen's vehicle.
Texas should set priorities to lower unnecessary arrests, whether it be for traffic violations or possession of small amounts of marijuana. These unnecessary arrests waste taxpayer dollars and diminish the trust in public safety officials, especially in officers.
Saturday, May 11, 2019
Abortion - Lies into Laws (Blog #3)
This article on House Bill 16 that covers the future of abortion legality in Texas is written by Sophie Novack. Novack is a graduate of Dartmouth and is a public health writer for the Texas Observer. Novack has been a freelance and staff writer at other publications but has no medical education background.
The intended audience of this article is those who are already pro-choice and liberal. It is an editorial that serves to explain HB 16 and to reinforce the beliefs of those against it.
Novack states the background of the bill, explaining that it is, "Texas’ version of a national proposal that failed in the U.S. Senate earlier this year." She also states the statistics that render the bill, seemingly, ineffective against abortions. Continuing to explain the bill, Novack quotes Rep. Donna Howard D-Austin who is the only representative that voted "no" against the bill. The main argument of the article is that HB 16 uses inaccurate and misleading language that muddles the facts of abortions, leading to intimidated physicians and misinformed citizens.
I think that it is important to look at this bill, not just at a local level, but at a regional and national level. Bills that are trying to limit abortion options and further stigmatize abortions are cropping up all over the U.S. in conservative states. The effects that these bills will have is indeed to lead to more stigmas by perpetuating false, unscientific ideas and outright lies. Texas' own Lieutenant Governor, the man who holds power in our state, Dan Patrick was quoted saying, "We have watched in horror as lawmakers in other states have put forth monstrous proposals that attack life and expand abortion, even for children that have been born.” Which, as the article also states, is grossly false and an attempt at scaring conservative citizens with misinformation. Abortions aren't legal after birth, and Patrick's quote is only a reiteration of a tweet from President Trump saying, "The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth...." President Trump tweeted this as the US Senate was trying to pass a similar bill. The issue here is that there is already a similar law in place (Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002) which shows that these bills are already useless, and therefore only serving to further stigmatize abortions.
Despite the misinformation and unfounded "science" used in anti-abortion arguments, this bill is beyond unwarranted because it only serves to further stigmatize abortions after 21 weeks. Most abortions after 21 weeks are performed for unviable pregnancies (fetuses that would die during, or shortly after, birth) and pregnancies that endanger the mother's life. Why should these procedures be stigmatized to further an unfounded argument?
Why are lies being made into laws?
The intended audience of this article is those who are already pro-choice and liberal. It is an editorial that serves to explain HB 16 and to reinforce the beliefs of those against it.
Novack states the background of the bill, explaining that it is, "Texas’ version of a national proposal that failed in the U.S. Senate earlier this year." She also states the statistics that render the bill, seemingly, ineffective against abortions. Continuing to explain the bill, Novack quotes Rep. Donna Howard D-Austin who is the only representative that voted "no" against the bill. The main argument of the article is that HB 16 uses inaccurate and misleading language that muddles the facts of abortions, leading to intimidated physicians and misinformed citizens.
I think that it is important to look at this bill, not just at a local level, but at a regional and national level. Bills that are trying to limit abortion options and further stigmatize abortions are cropping up all over the U.S. in conservative states. The effects that these bills will have is indeed to lead to more stigmas by perpetuating false, unscientific ideas and outright lies. Texas' own Lieutenant Governor, the man who holds power in our state, Dan Patrick was quoted saying, "We have watched in horror as lawmakers in other states have put forth monstrous proposals that attack life and expand abortion, even for children that have been born.” Which, as the article also states, is grossly false and an attempt at scaring conservative citizens with misinformation. Abortions aren't legal after birth, and Patrick's quote is only a reiteration of a tweet from President Trump saying, "The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth...." President Trump tweeted this as the US Senate was trying to pass a similar bill. The issue here is that there is already a similar law in place (Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002) which shows that these bills are already useless, and therefore only serving to further stigmatize abortions.
Despite the misinformation and unfounded "science" used in anti-abortion arguments, this bill is beyond unwarranted because it only serves to further stigmatize abortions after 21 weeks. Most abortions after 21 weeks are performed for unviable pregnancies (fetuses that would die during, or shortly after, birth) and pregnancies that endanger the mother's life. Why should these procedures be stigmatized to further an unfounded argument?
Why are lies being made into laws?
Thursday, May 9, 2019
HB 1631 (Blog Stage 2)
This article covers House Bill 1631; which is a bill that would eradicate red light running cameras in Texas. The red light cameras, and the consequent tickets issued, have been ruled constitutional but have faced a lot of controversy in recent years. Texas is working to outlaw the red light cameras because they infringe on citizens privacy, right to a fair trial, and are mainly used for generating revenue. Using red light cameras to generate revenue is very lucrative for local governments but can lead to their abuse. Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford is heading the bill that has final House approval but has to pass in the Senate by May 22 before the end of the session. Rep. Celia Israel, D-Austin opposed the bill because they reduce T-bone accidents, but red light cameras have also been said to increase rear-end accidents from people slamming on their brakes to avoid running the red light.
Being aware of this bill and its progress is worth it. House Bill 1631 has important implications for citizens rights and safety, no matter which side you are on, and could serve to create a standard that other states follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)