Perry's Assault on Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood, a federally sponsored program, has long been a subject of controversy in Texas. But recently, issues against the program that provides women’s healthcare and abortions have come to a breaking point with Governor Rick Perry’s proposal for a new, state run program. This Texas Women’s Health Program will provide many of the same services as Planned Parenthood (contraception, screenings) for low income women, but will not provide abortion. According to the Austin American Statesman, Perry stated “Let me be clear. Texas will not allow a program that includes abortion providers, or their affiliates like Planned Parenthood, to be a provider. And if they file a lawsuit challenging the Texas program, and they were to prevail, they will kill this program, and they would be responsible for denying these important services for the low-income women of Texas.” By stating the issue in such absolute terms, I don’t think that Perry is being quite fair. Choosing one’s healthcare provider is protected in the constitution. Perry himself said that even if the federal government refuses to give funding to the state program, Texas can and will do it alone. If this is true, and feasible, why can’t both programs be an option to women? Because Perry has proudly taken a Pro-Life stance, and all but swears to stomp out Planned Parenthood and its evil ways. 

Governor Perry’s veritable crusade against Planned Parenthood as an abortion provider is regrettable, to say the least. While some may think that his staunchly Pro-Life attitude is attractive, I think it is nothing short of dictatorship. According to CNN, Perry is quoted saying “In Texas, we chose life, and we will immediately begin defunding all abortion affiliates to honor and uphold that choice.” This broad generalization puts words into the mouths of Texas women, and takes away their freedom as Americans to make that choice. Personal liberty and freedom is a tenet of Texas ideology and I find it ridiculous that Governor Perry plans on taking that away for Texan women. That being said, if low income, Pro-Life women wish to receive services from a clinic that doesn’t perform abortions, the Texas Women’s Health Program seems to be a good choice that they ought to have access to. But isn’t that a lot of funding for two programs that would offer identical services except for abortion? 

I find it absurd that Texas is spending time, effort, and money not only going to court over this issue, but even creating the program in the first place. The federal and state government will always be inextricably linked. Making a choice regarding abortion should always be an option for women. If Texas doesn’t want government funded programs, then it shouldn’t be part of the union. I truly believe that it will be a dark day for democracy in Texas if Planned Parenthood and the services it provides are defunded and no longer an option to those seeking them. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. 

“Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” ~ Obi Wan (Revenge of the Sith) 

Click here for satire!

Border Safety

The author of “Grits for Breakfast,” a blog concerning Texas justice, posted an interesting commentary on the relative safety of Texas border towns, and how their reputation is inextricably linked to their Mexican counterparts. A website entitled “Laredoissafe.com” has been making an appearance on billboards along Texas highways. This site serves to debunk the hype that labels Laredo as a dangerous town because of the violent drug wars that are taking place only miles to the south. Grits acknowledges that yes, although the town has seen a significant drop in reported crime over the last year, that this is not the only indicator of Laredo’s safety. The article concludes by asserting “So yes, "Laredo is safe." But to the extent its fate is intertwined with Mexico's, regrettably that isn't the only consideration.”

I think that this commentary, though short, is both accurate and credible. The author not only cites the actual website (laredoissafe.com) but also refers to studies done across the state regarding statistics about violence and traffic violations in other major cities. The article also provides some explanation as to why the city of Laredo might be taking these measures. (Specifically, that a “PR campaign being undertaken by Agricultural commissioner Todd Staples” is slamming border towns for their lack of security). This background information also helps give depth and credibility to the article. 

The author’s main argument is that although it’s certainly plausible that Laredo is safe, that isn’t saying much considering the amount of violence that takes place just across the border. I think that this claim is very accurate, backed up by the author’s logic and use of several other sources. The only thing that would perhaps strengthen the article a bit is if the author provided some specific examples of the referred-to violence occurring in Nuevo Laredo. Many Texans are already aware of this, but an uninformed reader (or someone who isn’t from Texas) might not have that insight. I assumed the intended audience to be those interested in Texas justice, particularly blog readers and internet users, who may be of the younger generation. That being said, I think this strong, concise piece would be informative to any audience. 

Generally appealing...but not really.

An article by the Austin American Statesman's Editorial Board on October 3rd finds "Perry's tuition proposals generally appealing." The editorial describes the governor's ideas for boosting higher education, and reflects on some of the difficulty students face when paying for college. Overall, the tone of the article is a moderate one. The author illustrates the facts of Perry's proposals, and acknowledges that many of them are good ideas. With regards to Perry's intent to freeze tuition rates for four years, the article states "it wouldn't lower tuition rates...but it would make the cost of college more predictable." This editorial is definitely credible, as it quotes directly from Governor Perry and also references the specifics of the proposed legislature.

 

After what seems like a simple description of possible changes in higher education, the author then starkly states that Perry's "call for a $10,000 degree, it remains, almost two years after he proposed it, more gimmick than realistic goal." This claim seems to come from out of the blue, but the author then goes on to argue the point with strong evicence. The article cites previous research done by the Statesman, which examined the value of such a degree, as well as the effects of past legislature on the current issues. The details and specifics add credibility to the piece, making it more than just an opinion. The article bleakly wraps up by concluding "...but it's foolish to wish for something that will not be. Not with this governor or the incoming Legislature." This is in reference to the sad fact that Texas universities have no restrictions on capping their per-credit-hour price tag.

 

The intended audience could be anyone who is interested in higher education, but this editorial seems especially targeted toward students and their parents, giving them facts about obstacles they might face when applying for college. As a young person facing some of these exact challanges, it certainly got my attention. The point the author argues, namely, that Rick Perry has effectively done next to nothing with our state's education system, is one I happen to agree with. That being said, I think the article would do a good job arguing the case to anyone, due to its heavy use of numbers, facts and basic logic. The article ends on a point I strongly agree with, that "a college education is about more than career training-- an aspect that seems forgotten in discussions of tuition and grauation rates."