Blog Stage 4: Tea anyone?

I found an article by Shawn M. Griffiths on The North Texas Conservative.

In the article Mr. Griffiths starts out by commenting on the Tea Parties happening in Texas followed by a paragraph effused with pride over Texas’ state legislature is “considering a resolution that will remind President Barack Obama that the [U.S.] Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, by which our country and our government is founded.” He continues to disparage over President Obama’s lack of appreciation for the U.S. Constitution and then compares him, unfavorably to Lincoln and finishes the article by accusing those who voted for President Obama as blind followers worshipping the current President of the United States of America.

While there are many points here that I would love to pick apart, I’m going to focus on the Texas state legislature portion.

The “resolution” Mr. Griffiths is referring to would be HCR 50 (Link), a bill introduced by the Texas Legislature that, if I’m reading this correctly, is just a hop, skip and a jump away from secession.

Which can’t happen; the state of Texas is not allowed to secede.

It’s also treasonous.

This does not give me warm fuzzy feelings.

I like being an American; if someone asks me what my nationality is, I’ll say American before I say Texan (I know, that’s a little backwards in this state). Besides, trying to work out the budget without federal aid, our own military and, of course, NASA, would be a nightmare.

As for Mr. Griffiths’ article, I found it poorly organized and irritating with all the insulting remarks against liberals, independents, and the late former Pres. Abraham Lincoln.

Also, it would’ve been nice if he had mentioned HCR 50, you know: The subject of his post.

Blog Stage 3: Legal, but is it Sound?

According to an editorial in the Austin American Statesman, a bill with an anti-abortion inclination to it has been proposed to the senate this past week.

The bill, written by Sen. Dan Patrick (R), proposes that anti-abortion information must be read to the patient before the procedure and that during the ultrasound all women seeking an abortion are required to have, the image of the unborn child must be described – in detail – to the patient. A last stipulation is that the heartbeat must be audible during the exam.

This bill would be added to the already in place procedure to inform women that abortion can increase the chances of breast cancer.

The editorial states that this bill was designed to “humiliate” women seeking an abortion and asserts that Pro-Life activists are jubilant with the bill, happy to be “right there in the clinic, shaking their collective fingers at the woman.”

One final point the editorial makes is that Texas, while notably strict on abortion rights, is also notably lacking when it come to providing for children after they are born; citing Perry’s and the Republican leadership’s stinginess with child healthcare for poor families.

The editorial ends with a few paragraphs on the Prevention Works Act (PWA), another bill in the senate house written by Sen. Kirk Watson (D) and Rep. Mark Strama (D). PWA, both the senator and representative claim, would reduce teen pregnancy by requiring schools to inform parents, in writing, what was being taught in sex education classes.

I agree with the viewpoint of the writer. Being subjected to a guilt trip by the government – when you are already in emotional and hormonal turmoil – is a travesty.

One other thing that I really like about this piece is that it doesn’t center solely on the ultrasound issue, but gives an alternative, more humanitarian (towards the women considering abortions) approach to counter unwanted pregnancy rates; although, I don’t know how effective informing parents of their childrens' sex education will be to deter their children from having sex, unprotected or otherwise since both can potentially result in pregnancy. I think that someone who:

a) knows how sex education should be taught and,

b) is willing to enforce the regulations desperately needed

I think, would be a better choice.

It also doesn’t address the concern that some of these women really are women, not teenage girls who should know better. How do we educate them?

One step at a time I suppose…