Say-No-Grams

According to the State Health Services “about 75,000 abortions were performed in Texas in 2010, the latest year for which statistics are available.” There are various reasons for why a woman chooses to have an abortion such as no money to raise a child, having been a rape victim or not wanting to be a single parent.

NBCNews published an article on February 2^nd, 2012 that Texas has begun to enforce a strict anti-abortion sonogram law. This means that the doctor performing the abortion has to conduct a sonogram beforehand showing the woman images of the fetus and making her listen to the heartbeat. By employing this law the state hopes that more women will change their mind about aborting the baby and keeping it instead. 

Is this law really going to affect a woman’s decision overall? Let’s think about it for a second. There is no doubt that the woman walking into an abortion clinic already made up her mind as to whether she should keep the baby or get rid of it. She should be the only one to decide what is best for her and her life. If she feels that an abortion is the right thing for her, then she should do it and not even the sonogram law should try to change her mind.

Rochelle Tafolla, spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast said “emotions range from confusion to anger to being quite emotionally upset by it. Having to hear the position described of fetal development is not something they are wanting to endure.”  Now the question is, why do you have to put pregnant women through more than they already have to go through? Whatever the reason for abortion is, it is a good enough reason for the woman to do it. Let’s get real! What’s worse: a woman getting an abortion because she is not apt to raise that child for whatever reason OR the woman being “talked” into having the child through a sonogram, then neglecting and resenting it all her life. Who knows that child could turn into a mass murderer one day as a consequence of growing up in a broken home. Do we really want that?
The legislature needs to just realize that sonograms  are redundant here, takes up a lot of doctors’ time that they could be using to help people instead and costs the government a lot of money.  Why don’t we take those funds somewhere else and invest in the public health care system for example? What do you say, Texas?

Texas Legislators Encourage Smoking

According to the American Cancer Society tobacco use is responsible for nearly 1 in 5 deaths in the United States. Because cigarette smoking and tobacco use are acquired behaviors − activities that people choose to do – smoking is the most preventable cause of death in our society. 

State Senator Carlos Uresti proposed a bill to raise the minimum age to buy cigarettes from 18 to 21. In his article “BREAKING: legislators stunned to find that anti-smoking bill causes reduction in smoking” posted Feb. 19, on the Texas political blog Letters from Texas the author Harold Cook voices his opinion about the legislators turning down Uresti’s bill. According to the fiscal note it would cost the state over $20 million a year in lost revenue, if less people were to buy cigarettes and pay less cigarette taxes, thus the bill is not acceptable. 

Cook uses sarcasm in his article to show his rage about the legislators’ decision. He believes that they should take a look at the big picture when making this decision.  He states that in the long run more money could be saved. The government constantly complains about all the expenses towards treating people who get sick from smoking and who depend on the public health care system. Cook makes a valid point that just by reducing the use of tobacco products the state is not actually losing money, but investing in people’s health which would overall reduce the health care costs.

All in all, I agree with the author. His arguments are strong, straightforward and convincing. He does an excellent job of ridiculing the legislators and making the reader see that turning down Uresti’s bill was a big mistake. However, there is one thing that I would have liked Cook to do differently in his article. He could have added some numbers showing to the audience how much of a negative effect tobacco really has on people. 

In conclusion, I thought this was a solid article that does a great job of presenting the issue at hand. The legislators should have done the “right thing” and thought about the future instead of just thinking about the “right now.”