Take religion out of it

I absolutely agree with Tommy on Texas that religion should be left out of our laws.  Making laws based on religious text or doctrine encourages intolerance and hatred, and is, of course, unconstitutional.  Christians in this state have no business pushing their values onto their constituents.  If the tables were turned, and other religions forced their values upon Christians, the cry of "foul" would be heard across the state.   I also agree that family planning is essential and it is a shame that funding for these services, and other women's health services through Planned Parenthood have been cut.

However, I have to disagree that "Whatever your personal beliefs are about when life begins, supporting the bills that are being introduced across the country to cut funding to Planned Parenthood are saying that women are incapable of making the right choice. "  


This isn't about women choosing abortion/no abortion.  That choice making was already done, at the time of unprotected sex.  Women are perfectly capable of  making safe choices for their bodies, which would include protected sex. It is,however, critical that men and women both have information available to them (from PP, or other agencies) to make the right choice before engaging in sexual acts.  That funding is urgently needed.  PP needs to be funded to provide those services.


Taking religion out of this, the fact is that NOBODY can say when life starts.  Until science can definitively prove when a life is a life, then I feel is is prudent to err on the side of caution.  I feel that the non-medically necessary abortion is not a religious dilemma, but a violation of human rights.  And based on that,  I don't think Planned Parenthood should have tax dollars to provide non-medically necessary abortions.  Again, this isn't about women and their right to choose, or how Jesus feels about abortion.  It is about the fact that all human beings have the same rights, no matter how old or how young.  The most vulnerable of our society need protection.


If Planned Parenthood really wanted to be available to help women with contraception, family planning and health care, they would completely separate those services from the abortions they provide.  The controversial service they offer would be a separate entity from the health care services they offer. Funding could be provided for the family planning and health care aspects of what they do,and no money provided for abortions.  

Sovereign Immunity for the State of Texas

I recently received an email from one of my list serves, on behalf of the Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, that SB 1523 is under consideration in the Texas Senate, and if passed, would "release Texas of its claim of sovereign immunity of the ADA."   (Americans with Disabilities Act)

I had never heard of sovereign immunity, and learned that some states are able declare themselves immune from being sued either civilly or criminally.  The saying is "The queen/king can do no wrong", according to Wikipedia.  Other organizations, groups and individuals can be sued for violating the ADA.   Even cities and counties in the State of Texas are able to be sued, but the Texas government cannot.  Ironically, our attorney general Greg Abbott is a man with a disability, and I would expect him to be ardently opposed to any piece of legislature that would prevent access and civil rights to all persons with disabilities.

I have issue with people in power who feel they are above the regulations they enforce.  This is in essence a political version of the school yard bully.  To be in a position of being untouchable needs to be addressed, because if a person with a disability has no real recourse, then their civil rights have been violated.

If this bill is not passed, I foresee people who sue going after blameless cities and counties who may not have the resources to handle a legal issue that should have been tried at a state level.

The notion of sovereign immunity is another indicator that politicians in Texas do what will protect themselves, instead of doing what is in the best interest of their constituents.

http://www.cotwd.org/ada_page.html

A blind eye towards equal rights

While reading Tommy's blog post from April 1st, I felt frustrated for him.  I felt frustrated that a state government can choose to ignore the ruling of the federal Supreme Court, and the federal government turns a blind eye to the fact that these illegal laws are still on our books.  And I feel frustrated that it appears that nothing will be done in this legislative session to end discrimination against same-sex couples.  


The Supreme Court was very clear in their ruling.  "Justice Stevens concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html)

So why is this still an issue?  This seems to be primarily a problem for religious folks who want to keep our great state "moral".  I usually see the Christian crowd fighting against equal rights for gays, which leads to my next question:  What happened to the separation of church and state?  How is it that one religious group can force their doctrine into our laws, and keep it there in spite of the above ruling?  And on a larger scale, how would these Christians react if another religious group became the governing majority in this country and began forcing their doctrine into our laws?

The hypocrisy is obvious.  The laws are antiquated and demeaning.  And not to mention in direct conflict with federal law.  I agree, Tommy.  Equal rights always prevail.

To Beer or Not to Beer

I never noticed that a microbrew that is made in Texas cannot be sold in grocery stores or liquor stores, and was interested to find out that the legislature is currently debating HB 660, which, if passed, would allow microbrewers to sell their crafts off their premises.  Currently, state laws for alcohol date back to post-Prohibition times, which divide the industry into 3 categories:  Distributors, breweries and retailers.  It is currently against the law for any one person/entity to own businesses in more than one of those categories.  When brewpubs were legalized in 1993, they were considered retailers.  And because of these old laws, a brewpub is unable to distribute its own beer within the state of Texas.  Seems like a good idea to change the laws and allow brewpubs the opportunity to sell outside of their establishments, right?

After recently reading about lobbying in the State of Texas, it was interesting to see it in action.  It seems that most everyone feels that allowing microbreweries to distribute and sell their own crafts is a great idea, except for the Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas (WBDoT).  I haven't been able to find any reason why the WBDoT are so against this law, but these guys are a huge lobbying group and appear to have clout.  Their clout may outweigh their lack of reasoning in this matter, and they may be able to sway the legislature to vote down HB 660.  These types of things usually are reduced down to money, so I would guess that the big guys are fearful of losing market share to the little guys.

What doesn't make sense is that a microbrewery in another state can distribute and sell their crafts in Texas, but a microbrewery in Texas cannot. Perplexing that other states have the craft beer market cornered in Texas.  Surely the legislature can see this?

Allowing Texas craft beers into the market would increase sales of an in-demand product, and bring in more revenue for the state. The people get their beer, the state gets money.  Free flow of beer and money, sounds like a slice of heaven.

Porkucation anyone?

The school budget shortfall has been heavy on my mind lately, I have 4 kids coming down the pipes of the public school system in Austin.  I am also pursuing an degree in education, and I see the need for more teachers, and am disgusted that school districts are having their hands forced, and are making difficult choices such as closing schools and letting teachers go.  Increasing classroom sizes to unmanageable numbers is dangerous and does not create a good learning environment.   I am very worried about special education services.  I don't think people understand the health care crisis that will happen in the next 10-20 years if children with special needs such as Autism don't get the help they need to become functioning, empowered citizens instead of living in state-funded assisted living facilities for their entire adulthood.

But are the districts really cutting all that they can?  I used to work for a semiconductor company, and the industry is notorious for glorious highs and frantic lows in the market.  During an especially low time, an energy saving campaign was launched, designed to save the company money on the electric bills.  Our hours were reduced.  Less hours, less pay.. but we all had our jobs.  Perks and incentives were cut.  No more frivolous company parties or free food/lunch in the break room.  Employees were asked how we could cut costs in our areas, where we were experts on what was being wasted.  Anything to keep people working and in their jobs.

Aside from the fighting Gov. Rick Perry to accept the $830 million dollars in funding from the federal government, what else can be done to save money?  This blog from EmpowerTexans.com shows evidence that some school districts could do better in saving money, which in turn could save the jobs of some of the teachers who need to teach our children.

Especially alarming is the news that the Beaumont ISD superintendent is getting a pay raise during this fiscal crisis.  I respectfully suggest that this raise be declined.  This example of insanity leads me to something I thought of many weeks ago.. where is the suggestion of a pay cut for the top brass at AISD?   I don't see Dr. Carstarphen offering to take a reduction off her $283K salary.  When I worked for the aforementioned semiconductor company, one of the cuts they made was a 10% across the board salary reduction for all managers at a certain level.  Why hasn't this been offered as a solution to help save Texas schools?  How many teacher jobs could we save?   Andrew Kerr, author of this blog, has provided some valid points that raise questions about how much school districts really trying to save money in the face of reality that Gov. Perry likely isn't going to accept federal funds.  It would be interesting to see what other pork can be found in local school districts, not just in Beaumont.

The Key to the Future

Education in Texas is hurting.. badly.  The reports on the news are constant bad news: a budget that cannot be balanced without painful choices.  And while the fate of AISD and other Texas school districts is at the mercy of Texas lawmakers, a quieter story is that higher education is as well.  

This commentary from the February 23rd edition of the Austin American Statesman touches on the effect that slashing higher education dollars could have on our economy.  State lawmakers are debating how to manage a huge budget shortfall, estimated to be between $15 billion and $27 billion.  I sure wish we knew more specifically what the shortfall was, because there is a huge difference between $15 billion and $27 billion.  Why don't we have a tighter range?  It would be a huge benefit to know the real deficit.

Why should Texas invest in higher education?  There are short term and long term reasons.  The most immediate effect would be that college students will go to school somewhere else.  When higher education dollars are cut from the budget, colleges and universities must raise tuition and limit the amount and types of classes they offer. This would make colleges in other states more attractive.  If prospective Texas college students choose to attend college in another state, the economic impact on Texas would be huge.  Less students means less money spent in Texas, which means less sales tax generated.  It also means businesses that cater to college students will have drops in sales/income.  

On the long term outlook, making college more expensive means that less people will be able to afford an education past high school.  A strong future for our state hinges on an educated and skilled workforce.  There are social ramifications as well.  The commentary says "States that invest in higher education are rewarded with higher standards of living, reduced crime rates, increased charitable giving, increased quality of life and improved life expectancy."  

It would be foolish for Texas to deeply cut higher education dollars, our state needs more education affordable to more people, not the other way around.  Our government seems to treat education as a necessary evil, instead of as the key to our future success, growth and stability.

Awareness of The Choice

 This past Thursday, anti-abortion activists rallied at the Capitol on Thursday, in response to a bill that a state Senate committee approved the day before.  The bill requires doctors to show a sonogram to any woman who will be having an abortion, and to show the woman the beating heart of her baby.

I think there should be a protocol that all doctors have to follow when an elective abortion is to be performed.  When I say elective, I mean a woman who is not in danger of losing her life if the pregnancy were to continue.  This should include counseling and making sure that the woman realizes that science has not determined exactly when life begins, awareness of what is growing inside of her, and also awareness of the long term emotional ramifications that most women experience as a result of choosing an abortion.