Stage Eight: (Response To) "Allowing Consequences to Those Who Don't Follow Rules"

In, Allowing Consequences to Those Who Don’t Follow Rules, posted by my classmate Kenna Froehlich, she goes over the article, Give a GreenLight to Red Light Enforcement, posted by the American Statesman. The topic at hand is that the city of Austin should be given more authority to take action on those who are evading paying their fines for running red lights. Froehlich argues that the city does indeed need more authority to take action for financial benefits and safety benefits. Froehlich states, “If we continue to allow these people to break the law and cause these wrecks, we will also continue to hurt our people and our financial problems.”

I completely agree with Kenna, the city of Austin does need increased authority to enforce action on those who have tickets for running red lights so that they can pay up their fines. They broke the law and shouldn’t be allowed to think “oh it’s just a minor red light ticket.” As stated throughout her post, having those fined pay their tickets will not only benefit the city financially but benefit it safety wise. Those who neglect to pay on their tickets are causing the city to lose money that could help in raising revenue. As we discussed in one of our discussion topics, this could help in closing the gap. Now safety wise, those who run red lights run the risk of causing wrecks that could cause injuries and in some cases deaths. If the city enforces action, some accidents can be prevented. Action may lead to drivers being more cautious in order not to ticketed or fined. Let’s face it, nobody wants to have to pay a fine or be hunted down just for running a red light. Drivers will take necessary precautions to avoid the hassle. The experience shouldn’t be a pleasant one. So, I’m all in favor for the necessary action to be taken in order to gain these benefits not only for our financial gains and safety gains, but for our city.

Stage Seven: Texas Sued

Women's Health Care has become a hot topic in Texas lately. I've written about the topic in one of my recent blog posts, End of Women's Health Program? It states how some held the belief that a law that withheld funding to clinics that assisted in abortions was specifically aimed at Planned Parent Hood. As the law was passed, certain things have come into light, and some of those who held that belief may have just been right. Planned Parenthood has sued the state of Texas.
Eight Planned Parenthood Clinics to be exact, have sued the state of Texas for violating "their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association," as pointed out in the article, Planned Parenthood Sues State of Texas, posted by Fox 7 News. The law states that those organizations who are affiliated with clinics that provide abortion are not allowed to participate in Women's Health Programs and funding, regardless if the organizations provide abortions or not. Planned Parenthood believes the recent law is a way for the state of Texas to silence and attack those who support abortion rights.
I for one believe that Planned Parenthood is correct. Just because something is made a law, does not make it right. They should not be punished or excluded because of their views or beliefs. Planned Parenthood is a major provider to women all across the state. Without funding, the state will cut off help to many women who are in desperate need of it. The clinics provide help with STD's, Birth Control, Women's Health, and are affordable to those who need it...why exclude them just because they are affiliated with abortion? The state of Texas is unjust in their so called "law", which will only cause more problems than do good.  

Stage Five: Pink Slime or No Pink Slime?

Pink Slime, the nickname given to the meat product used in various establishments throughout Texas has become a controversial issue in the recent month. Pink Slime is made up of boneless lean beef trimmings, which are later mixed with ground beef and mixed into patties. The product was widely used because it was 90% lean and free of bacteria such as E.Coli and Salmonella. So why is it causing an uproar in the public? The issue at hand is how the product is treated in order to be bacteria-free, which is by the use of ammonia hydroxide. Also that this treatment isn't labeled on the products it is used in.

In recent months many establishments such as Taco Bell, Burger King, and McDonald's have put a stop to the use of the pink meat in their products. But, lately even some of the school districts in Texas that do use the "pink slime" are debating on whether to put an end to it as noted in the article, School districts consider ending use of maligned meat product posted in The Austin American Statesman. The production plants have even halted work due to the recent social uproar that has given the product a negative reputation.

Let's go with the facts. Yes the product may have an unattractive look, yes the product is treated with ammonia hydroxide....BUT, the USDA believes the ammonia hydroxide treatment to be safe, the product is 95% fat free, which would help in the fight of obesity in our nation, it is also free of horrible bacteria such as E. Coli and Salmonella, cutting the use of this so called "Pink Slime" will lead to the slaughtering of more cattle, lead to the use of meat that may not be 100% bacteria-free, and it would drive the prices up of beef in our already struggling economy. Those worried about the safety of the use of this ammonia treated meat should also take into consideration that it's been used since the 1990's and has "...no reported cases of illness or disease traced to the trimming," as reported by USA Today in the article, What the end of "pink slime" means to you.

The Texas school districts are trying to take into consideration all options presented by those for and against the use of the lean meat. The argument is now whether there should be a choice of schools purchasing the product or if lawmakers should restrict it from being purchased by the government all together. The state should allow schools a choice of keeping or dismissing the product, and the product should be added on labels to inform the public of what exactly they are putting into their mouths. That way those who dislike the product wont eat it and those who believe it benefits them more than other meats can continue to keep eating it. That way everyone wins.

Stage Four: UT Ban of Antibacterial Soap

The American Statesman posts the article, Antibacterial soap ban may be timely, written by Laura Skelding. The article explains how students at the University of Texas aimed to ban the use of antibacterial soap to prevent the harm it can cause to our immune systems.

When I first heard the story on the news, I thought "Ha, what a bunch of junk", but reading the article and learning the facts surrounding the subject, I can say I agree with Skelding when she states, "they will have rid the university of a product that at best is unnecessary and at worst might cause more harm than good." Skelding  gives statistics connected to the subject that assist in informing the readers about the downside to the use of Antibacterial soap, which contains Triclosan. She explains throughout her article how the use of Triclosan can harm the environment by running into our water system, weakening our immune system to the point where it can cause multiple health problems to our population in the future, and more. 

Skelding aims her article towards the general public, to inform them of the issue at hand and the background to why the students at the university are trying to ban this everyday product. She gives facts to backup her argument that the antibacterial soap is harmful. Some may disagree with the decision of the students, as I did at first hearing their choice, but after reading this article Skelding has persuaded me with her article to jump on the wagon with those trying to ban antibacterial soap. If it'll benefit our health in the long run then I'm all for it.

Stage Three: End of Women's Health Program?

February 23rd, 2012, CBS DFW posts Texas Defies Feds on Funding For Women's Clinics. The article states that the health department is going to take action in order to enforce a new Texas law that states funds cannot be provided to "...a clinic that is affiliated with an organization that provides abortions, even if that institution does not provide abortions itself." Some believe that the law is mainly targeted towards Planned Parenthood, one of the main clinics who works with abortion organizations. The state is not able to "pick and choose" the clinics in the Women's Health Program, creating a controversy for those against the law.

This is ridiculous to deny these clinics funding, because help with abortion is not all they provide. Cutting off funding will cut off help to the other population of women who seek help for other health related problems that aren't abortion. It seems as if it is a never ending war with the subject of abortion. For the state to go through all this trouble in order to try and put an end to something they see "inhumane". In order to satisfy their beliefs, they disregard the needs of others. 

The author, Andrea Lucia's intended audience seems to be the women of Texas as her article tends to point out the negatives of the law being passed. There doesn't seem to be much of an argument posed directly from the author herself. I agree with the article posted by the author, that the law will create a variety of problems for many women looking for health support and for the economical factor of the program.

Stage Two: Pre-Abortion Sonogram Law Controversy

February 7th, 2012, The Texas Independent posts an article Judges ruling allows enforcement of pre-abortion sonogram law, written by Mary Tuma. The main Judge who was against the controversial law which requires that women seeking an abortion must undergo a sonogram of their fetus at least a day before attempting to terminate the pregnancy, has taken a step aside and withdrew his fight to stop the law from going through. The only way a person can be opted out from the sonogram is if they are underage, the pregnancy was due to a sexual assault or incest, or the fetus has a medical condition. I mean seriously? This has got to be one of the most ridiculous laws that I have ever heard of. I used to be pro-life, but honestly now that I've gotten older I've come to realize that abortion isn't all that bad. Some of you may not agree with me, but I agree with Judge Sparks when he states, "...requires doctors to attempt to discourage their patients from obtaining abortions, in a variety of ways, even in cases where the doctors have determined that an abortion is, for any number of reasons, the best medical options." The doctor must show the patient images of the fetus, describe in detail the images shown of the fetus, and play the sound of the heartbeat. If someone has made a choice to abort a child, they shouldn't be tortured with "life" into keeping the child. They shouldn't be put on a guilt trip. As the judge stated, " This one-size-fits-all approach seems to be the very antithesis of reasonable regulation of medical practice." Their are various reasons that a person would choose to abort a child, other than those listed under the pre-abortion sonogram law. What if someone happens to not fall under the qualifications to opt out, but have a legit reason to make the decision to terminate their pregnancy? What if they are financially unstable to support that child? This is an important article for others to read, especially the women of Texas because we should be allowed to make our own choices with matters of our bodies and lives.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/06/judge-will-allow-texas-abortion-ultrasound-law-take-effect/

Stage One