A Response to Kavina Patel’s “Abortion Rights - Texas Women”

A Response to Kavina Patel’s “Abortion Rights - Texas Women” http://thegovernmentnotebook.blogspot.com/2014/02/abortion-rights-texas-women.html

What a heavy, yet important, topic. Abortion has been a hot button issue for decades at this point. Coming to the forefront in the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the debate over abortion rages on. I’m not certain on where I stand on this issue, in all honesty. On one hand I see the immorality of killing or aborting a living being. On the other hand I see viable reasons for following through with such a procedure. I believe that abortions should be handled on a case by case basis and the process should be carried out only after being fully educated and counseled upon. One instance in which I think a woman should be able to abort, directly is when it comes to rape. The most heinous of all crimes in my opinion, women should not have to have a lifelong reminder of this horrific incident. But again on the other hand, I also believe men and women who engage in acts of procreation (for lack of a better term), should be more disciplined in their actions. In other words, don’t use abortion as a means of erasing the actions that took place after a night of binge drinking etc.  Enough about my views.

This current Texas ruling makes it very inconvenient for a pregnant woman to receive an abortion. It seems to fulfill a conservative social view as opposed to a medically-backed, “for the good of the woman and her child’s well being” thought process. As stated by my classmate, Kavina, the Supreme court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey forbids state regulations that have “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus”. This, like the topic of abortion itself, appears to have a grey area. How is a “substantial obstacle” quantified? In my opinion there is a place for abortions in today’s society, but they should not be carried out in haste and reactionary. Abortions should be carried out only after proper counseling, whether it be parents, professionals, spouses, or other people who have the woman’s best interest in mind. Also, accurate information and education should be readily available about this oft-debated decision. Finally, abortion should be carried out after other options have been exhausted, if a woman is able to bring herself to carrying the child to term and arranging an adoption this appears a better option in my eyes. Again, 100% the mother’s decision.  The woman should absolutely decide on her own if this is the right option for her, but not as a reaction, instead a sound-minded decision.

For Texas to more or less “hassle” women about this life-altering decision is out of line in my view. It is not a state’s duty to decide for a woman if she must carry a child to term. Nor is it our national government’s place to force women who may have conceived through traumatic circumstances, to carry that offspring to term. Texas has a long history of conservative, religious-based viewpoints, so I am not surprised that this law was passed. Though it does show a shift toward more liberal viewpoints here in Texas, with a narrow 5 to 4 margin in the vote.

 Sen. Paul tries to block Obama's 'political' surgeon general nominee

This issue came to my attention on 2/26/14 in an article published by The Boston Globe. The story goes something like this. Barack Obama has recently nominated Dr. Vivek Murthy as a candidate for the Surgeon General of the United States, an immensely prestigious and responsibility-laden gig. This position is typically benign when it comes to political power and influence, this candidate does not fall under that umbrella. Dr. Murthy is deeply intertwined with Obama and his administration. Dr. Murthy is president and co-founder of "Doctors for America", a group of 16000 doctors and medical students which were powerful advocates for the passing of the recent "Obamacare" legislation. The group participated in many Obamacare rallies, submitted letters to the Supreme Court to sway their opinion and promoted the legislation at the Republican National Convention. Dr. Murthy also contests that gun violence is a "public health epidemic", like heart disease. This is yet another pro-Obama stance, pushing for stiffer gun control laws.

This is where the Republican Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, steps in. Sen. Paul is looking to become a roadblock in the path of the nominee. Sen. Paul questions Dr. Murthy's ability to serve as an impartial health educator to the American public, and sees Dr. Murthy as a political pawn as opposed to "America's Doctor". Sen. Paul's efforts may be in vain though, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has insisted that he will continue to push the nomination through, regardless of the "hold" Sen. Paul has placed on it.

I wholeheartedly agree with Sen. Paul. The position of surgeon general is ONLY to educate the American public on health issues which are important to and effect all of us. Dr. Murthy will most certainly stray from this education-centric agenda, as it is very apparent that he has a strong pro-Obama-policy agenda already in place. His past political actions have consistently shown that his political beliefs will most definitely sway his actions as surgeon general. It is inevitable that Dr. Murthy will be appointed, based on the numbers, though it is my strong belief that a politically neutral candidate should be nominated. Dr. Murthy's stance on gun control is especially concerning. Gun control is by no means a public health issue. It is a legislative issue and nothing more. The soon to be surgeon general speaking out for gun control, muddles his credibility as a competent candidate. I can see why he would have an opinion about Obamacare, because he wants to "get paid". Obamacare more or less forces bills to get paid, instead of having to provide massive amounts of charity care, a no-brainer for a doctor. But when you as a doctor open your mouth about gun control, all credibility is gone as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/02/26/rand-paul-places-hold-surgeon-general-nominee-vivek-murthy-but-serious-delay-not-likely-under-new-rules/bsAg6DMIl89NueFI5z2uFM/story.html

South Dakota Bill Aims To Send Abortion Doctors To Prison For Life

A bill proposed by South Dakota Representative Isaac Lattrell (R), has been presented to the House of Representatives that would "terminate abortions that use gruesome dismemberment of unborn fetuses". This includes dismemberment of the body of said fetus and decapitation. This proposition seems to be written in an extremely poignant manner. Rep. Lattrell uses language that is downright harsh. Such terms as "gruesome", "dismemberment", and "decapitation" are presented. These terms are meant to cause an intense emotional reaction amongst it's readers. An obvious right-wing, anti-abortion advocate, Rep. Lattrell either has scientific proof of this act or hasn't researched the topic properly. Seeing as I have never heard of such practices taking place, I would need to see evidence before taking this particular bill seriously. In my opinion, the Representative should've used less emotion-provoking language, in order to have his proposition taken more seriously. The author of the bill and the website both show a lack of professionalism in this exchange. The Representative appears to be rooted in a Christian, religious-based approach to politics. I say this because of his "fire and brimstone", style of speaking, as where in today's government he may have been better off using more politically correct terms, towards his peers. This is reinforced by his stating having just one abortion clinic, and that one clinic only allows the procedure during the first thirteen weeks of pregnancy. And most, if not all procedures at this particular clinic, are done using a pill. Therefore his claim of dismemberment seems to be off base.

I may also have a slight bias toward the pro-abortion side. Having been raised in a lower-middle class environment, I've seen some of the struggles that drug culture, lack of income from often single-parent homes and low availability of helpful programs for these unfortunate cases. Thus I can understand why some expectant parents would see abortion as an option. Also, rape constitutes a valid reason for an abortion, in my opinion. But that is a different topic for a different day, before I become incensed. Though I tend to side with the right-wing line of thinking, this bill is written so poorly that I simply cannot. I would typically not believe such a right-wing website post, chalking it up to slanderous opposition propaganda, but the language is quoted. Though the web post loses some credibility in the final few lines, by throwing around childish nonsense talk and name calling.

The Homogeneous Federal Bench

The Homogeneous Federal Bench

Upon reading this editorial, I was startled to learn of recent presidential appointments to several high courts here in America. These appointments appear to come in response to the realization of the high Federal courts being generally crusty white men. This issue can be viewed from different fronts. To one side you can see people arguing that a "homogenized" bench, especially in the Supreme Court, could lead to decisions being lopsided and following the viewpoints of one particular group. This also rears it's head through veins of law that these judges are pooled from. The diversity necessary to form vivid, thought-provoking arguments comes from judges being from various background both in the law world and in socioeconomic terms.

On the flip side, forcing the appointment of minority or female judges who aren't as qualified as their older white male opponents, could prove to have an extremely negative impact. An example of this is provided by the author, in the form of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. While she may have been qualified at her time of appointment, her women's lib, feminist and A.C.L.U. connection skews her views. This, in turn, could and through her own admission disqualify her from making unbiased and constitutionally straight forward decisions. Obama has nominated 85% corporate lawyers or prosecutors. This overwhelmingly skewed number could have a negative impact on fair decision making by leaving out key demographics and various experience backgrounds. Republicans tend to side with nominees who are business friendly and hard on criminals. 

I would align myself with that mindset, business friendly and hard on criminals that is. I believe in a small, but strong central government, whether that be judicial, legislative or executive branch. Though, while speaking directly on the judicial branch, it is beneficial in my eyes, to have a well balanced bench. In the same breath, I realize that it may be difficult to accomplish this, being that judges are appointed in different intervals. Through that logic, it would be difficult to ever have a true balance on any particular bench. 

I believe the intended audience for the author of this article is a forty-something, business professional. Having a long history of credibility and adequate writing, The New York Times Editorial Board is a collection of 19 authors. It is my belief that the arguments put forth by this collection of writers are well founded and backed up by statistics and research.

Raise minimum wage for government contractors', and that's and order!

The headline reads, "Obama to raise minimum wage for government contract workers". The article reads just that. President Obama has set forth an executive order to raise the Federal minimum wage for government contract workers. This is a large jump from the current $7.25 to the ordered $10.10. This would go into effect only on new contracts after 2015 and only for those government contractors. 75% of contractors make less than $10 and hour and 20% are dependent on Medicaid, 14 % utilize food stamp assistance. The executive branch is looking to increase morale, reduce turnover and boost productivity of their contractors. They plan on raising the Federal minimum wage for all employees shortly thereafter.

I found this article interesting and worth reading because of it's gravity towards our nation in whole. Also, the percentage of the minimum wage proposed to be raised is drastic in my opinion. It is relevant to me because I work fairly low wage jobs while in school, and hope to see and reverberation into my wages with the raise in the Federal minimum. Though this is probably wishful thinking. I chose this article because of it's relation to my situation and because of the weight it holds as a national policy. 

Washington Post article in question

Politically I align myself slightly toward the conservative side. I believe in small governments, minimal assistance, and personal freedoms.  Growing up in suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, I encountered people from all walks of life. I lived in an area that was lower-middle class.  From this I witnessed the countless amounts that would “use the system”. This, in large part, shaped my views politically. The solution I saw to that problem was taking their access to these heavily abused benefits. I believe that people should work hard and carve their own trail, not live off of government subsidies, merely because “they can”.  My view is people where I come from, lower-middle class, are often afforded greater opportunities and thus have equal, if not greater, paths to success. Though, most others where I grew up with carried a defeated, “woe-is-me” attitude.

I tend to side republican, with former president Bill Clinton, a democrat and Chris Christie, republican New Jersey governor, being among my political idols. I see each man as very honest, yet aggressive politically. What they do behind closed doors is neither here nor there in my eyes.  I do not currently vote as I am of the stubborn mindset that my vote only counts “in theory”.  I’m taking this class to fulfill certain requirements for my degree and a genuine interest in our world. I also hope to get a much better and enriched view of our nation’s government, as I am very open minded and impressionable politically.