Taking Homosexual conduct as a Crime out of the Texas Penal Code Books

       The issue that I am writing about is about the bill HB 1701 that Texas State Representative Jessica Farrar of Houston D-148 is trying to get passed. This bill will repeal a section of the Texas Penal code 21.06 which says that engaging in a  homosexual act is considered a misdemeanor crime. Though this section of the Texas Penal Code was declared unconstitutional, it remains in books due to refusal from the state of Texas. In some cases the fact that this section, yet unconstitutional, remains in the book has led to discrimination and unlawful treatment towards gays or lesbians from law enforcement.
       In an article I read online from Equality Texas it says that "This section of the Texas Penal Code was  ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in its 2003 decision, Lawrence v. Texas." The case was about a man who had the police called to his house on a weapons disturbance call and when the police arrived they found Lawrence engaged in a sexual act with another man and  were both arrested for sexual misconduct, then ordered to pay a fine simply for being two men having intercourse. The men argued that this was illegal under the Equal Protections Act as well as the Fourteenth Amendment. The men took their case to the Supreme Court where the ruling favored the two men, saying this arrest did indeed violate the Fourteenth Amendment, therefor making Section 21.06 illegal and unconstitutional.
         The Equality Texas article also says that the HB 1701 "would also remove from the Texas Health and Safety Code the statement "homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense under Section 21.06Penal Code." In my opinion it is crazy that this section has been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, yet still remains in the books. I feel this is the State of Texas' way of still holding a strong arm against homosexuality. As I have been reading the chapters about civil rights in my textbook and how we as a nation have fought so hard with one another to make an equal, fair and happy life for everyone, I find it incredibly confusing that there are still states, politicians and people in general who refuse to accept people for who they are. I have lived in Texas my whole life and have nothing but love for my state, but there are certain things that I just cannot stand for. The withdrawing of funds for women's health care because some clinics support abortion and especially the discrimination against gays and lesbians is something I can't tolerate. Isn't the right to be free what being an American is all about? Is this not why so many people come from different countries to live in America? The land of the free where every citizen is given an equal opportunity to be themselves and make a life for themselves. Isn't that what civil rights and the Civil Union is all about??
     I understand everyone having their own beliefs and ideas about what is moral and what is immoral, and we are all entitled to our own opinion but when it comes to the law, what is says shall stand no matter what anyone may think of it. This is why HB 1701 should be passed and everyone should support the removal of Section 21.06 and equal rights for every citizen. This bill will be bring us as a nation closer to fully closing the gap on discrimination and homophobia. As a native Texan and someone who absolutely loves this state and the city I live in and someone who has many gay and lesbian friends, I want Texas to be known for the many beautiful things it has to offer, not unjust practice against people of any diverse culture or lifestyle. There are many bills being sent to the House all the time and although I do think ones dealing with economical issues are extremely important among many other topics, so are ones protecting citizens rights such as HB 1701.


Sources:
EqualityTexas.org
http://kids.laws.com/lawrence-v-texas

"My Body My Choice" Reply

After reading my classmate, Tasha Houze's piece on women's rights, I was interested in sharing my perspective on this issue.
This is an issue that is very close to me, seeing as how me and many people that I know have been provided services at Planned Parenthood for many years. Just this past month I went to Planned Parenthood to get my yearly exam. My results came back abnormal and when this happens it is protocol to have a Colposcopy, which is a biopsy of the cervix to test for cervical cancer. This is a really big deal and many women I know have been through this. The procedure is very expensive, but with the incredible resources that Planned Parenthood provide to low income people such as myself, I was able to get this procedure done for an incredible $16. They also asked that I make a donation at my own discretion. Had it not been for PPH, I'm almost positive I would not have been able tp get this important procedure and in the time manner it was needed.
PPH provides many services to over five million men, women and adolescents worldwide. This is a pretty substantial amount of people. I find it difficult at times to understand why it's okay to provide Welfare and Medicaid to people who sometimes have babies irresponsibly and at times are on drugs and not working to give back in any way he funds they are receiving. This is why I do not support Texas Governor, Rick Perry. He has been adimant in pulling funds from PPH. In an article on the Huffington Post discussing a few sates have tried and failed to pull federal funding from PPH it states that "The governor of one of those states (Rick Perry), however, decided that if federal rules won't allow him to de-fund Planned Parenthood, so be it. H e would achieve his goal by forfeiting hundreds of millions of federal dollars in Medicaid togged for women's health care".
It's like you said, Tasha, it's not that the people who go to PPH are necessarily pro abortion, they are pro choice. It is a women's right to privacy and to make her own decisions regarding her body. I support a persons choice to do whatever they deem necessary and in the best interest for everyone in the situation. It is not the governments job to mingle in the personal live's and well being of anybody. This is a time in society when women are CEO's of huge companies, holding positions in the Supreme Court and making a huge impact on the world, yet we are still putting at restrictions on what a women can or can't do with her body.
I hope that PPH is able to overcome the hardships it has endured. The staff at the location I go to are very helpful, smart and caring. At some point I hope everyone can realize how many good things that the organization has done for so many people.

Sources:
www.huffingtonpost.com
www.plannedparenthood.org

The Legalization of Marijuana

The issue that I chose to talk about for my original blog editorial is the legalization of marijuana which has come about in many states over the past few years and when or if it may be coming soon for Texas. While it may seem cliche to write about  this topic, it is one that I hold dear to my heart being that I am an avid supporter for the legalization of marijuana in all states, particularly Texas. I have never understood why alcohol is legal and marijuana is not, considering the ratio of alcohol related deaths to marijuana related is not even close. The Centers for Disease Control and prevention states that "every day, almost 30 people die in the United States in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion." (www.CDC.gov). You cannot even find a category for marijuana deaths on the CDC website because they pretty much do not exist. Many states including Washington, Delaware, Colorado and Hawaii have all passed legislation that includes the legalization of marijuana in their state. It can be for caregiver purposes, medical purposes and in some cases for recreational use. This shows that state governments as well as the federal government are recognizing the good uses that marijuana carries and are accepting the fact that pretty much everyone smokes or has at one point smoked marijuana (including a few of very own presidents). Now as far as Texas is concerned, there is a fair mix of people who support and those who do not support its passage. In June of last year, The Democratic Party founds itself in support of the decriminalization of marijuana in Texas. This could be tricky seeing as how Texas remains a Republican dominant state with a Republican governor (Rick Perry). An article on The Huffington Post on the issue said that "Texas Democrats came together at their state convention earlier this month and agreed to adopt a plank to their party platform calling for the decriminalization of marijuana." While  some states want to pass it for multiple purposes, the Texas Democratic Party wants to legalize it for medical purposes and soften or completely take away jail time and punishments for citizens who have been arrested for possession of marijuana. This would make more room in jail for killers and rapists. Not for people such as myself who are hard working, tax paying citizens who like to smoke a little pot once in awhile. I know that there is concern about marijuana being a gateway drug, but there is no proof of that. Yes we know smoking is bad for our health, but hey, you can eat cannabis:). There is also concern of drug trafficking becoming a problem if we legalize cannabis, but I do not think this is the case. That, in my opinion, goes back to stricter border control and the federal and state governments regulating border security. If drug traffickers want to smuggle drugs into the U.S. and in Texas, they are going to attempt it whether pot is legalized or not. It may even help because citizens would not be needing to find sources outside of the U.S. We could regulate it within our own states, as many have been doing for years. This is an issue that has been on going in the United States for a very long time. We, as Texans, need to all support the bill HB-184 that didn't pass in 2012, but will be presented for vote again in 2013. There is so much we can do with hemp such as make paper, clothes, help the earth and cannabis has proven medical benefits. If alcohol is legal there is absolutely no reason that marijuana should not be. Its all about being a responsible user and not taking advantage of the freedoms that the government has or may grant us.

Blog critique over the V.A.W.A.

This blog http://crooksandliars.com/nonny-mouse/gwen-moore-and-violence-against-women-, really caught my attention because I have encountered many women in my life who have been victims domestic violence, rape and many other awful forms of abuse. The woman who wrote this blog's name is Nonny Mouse and was a victim of of abuse and sexual assault many times over the course of her life.  Her blog regarding her support for the Violence Against Women Act discusses how many Republican's such as Rep. Bob Turner have voted against the renewal of this act. In the article Mouse describes how Rep. Gwen Moore spoke out at the House of Representatives about her very own heart wrenching and sad stories of her being molested as a child and later the victim of a terrible rape which led to the pregnancy of her now adult son. Violence against women is absolutely a national issue considering thousands of women are raped, sexually abused and mentally abused every year in the United States. The V.A.W.A is was passed in 1994 and has been reauthorized twice since then. Now that it is up for renewal it is not being favored by everyone in the house, which is what Mouse' blog was mainly about. She describes Republicans and the GOP as not being responsive to attacks on women's health saying "They don't give a flying fox about women" and " The GOP has lost no time in trotting out their angry mama grizzles to support the backlash against women and minorities in general". Her intended audience is apparently anyone who supports women's rights, females in general and right wings who appear to be non caring and non supportive of protecting women and punishing the people who commit these violent crimes. I do agree with what Mouse is saying. In my opinion women as well as men should be equally protected and reserve the right to medical care that follows after these crimes, including abortions. As an avid supporter of health care practices such as Planned Parenthood it made me so angry when the Governor of the state I call home, Rick Perry, pulled all the funding from them. These places assist women who need help.Some after situations including sexual assault and it is sad that Rick Perry   is so one sided when it comes to the issue. Now with that being said the more I looked into the V.A.W.A., I started to see why maybe not every body supported it. I do agree with the American Civil Liberties Union with their concerns about the act saying that " the increased penalties were rash, the increased pretrial detention was "repugnant" to the US Constitution, the mandatory HIV testing to those who were only charged but not convicted is an infringement of a citizens right to privacy and the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was non-judicious." I also found that it wanted to put in the act that it would grant visas for illegal immigrants who were victims of sexual abuse, and protect American Indians living on reservations which could give the tribal courts more power. These were provisions that House of Representatives took out when the put their revision for the bill up to pass. Its a very grey area as far as the bill is concerned and while it did not pass when it was up for renewal in January of 2013, the revisions that were made and passed in 2005 remain. i feel that Nonny Mouse did a great job of getting her point of how important of  an issue attacks on women's health are but I think calling Republicans names such as "rich fat, white men' is a little childish and doesn't help to gain support of opposition she is trying to convince. As I take this Government course I am learning that not everything in politics is black and white and while you may wonder how anybody could vote against something that is protecting our mothers, daughters, aunts and so forth you sometimes have to dug a little deeper to see where opposing views come from. Nonny's is a credible resource considering she is first had example of women that are abused and raped in the United States. This is an act that I feel both parties agree on, just have opposed views on how it should be executed.

Political Analysis Blog

I chose to critique an article from The New York Times titled "The Gun Challenge: What We Don't Know is Killing Us"  The first thing that caught my attention about this article was the title. With all the killings that have taken place over the past few months like the shootings at Taft High School in California and Sandy Hook elementary in Connecticut, the debate over gun control is even stronger then ever. This article focuses on how the gun lobby has a strong hold on congress when it comes to regulating gun control and putting money forth to to places like the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies to research gun violence and what we can do to make it better. It has many valid and interesting points. For example the article sates that "gun lobby has effectively shut down research on gun violence for the past seventeen years". I find this extremely interesting because although it is our right to bear arms, it is also our responsibility to make sure those fire arms are being operated safely and being used in a legal and proper manner. President Obama has asked congress to aid in his research by donating millions of dollars to research involving deaths by guns and gun control and violence in general. These are clearly things that need to be investigated. With so many violent acts committed with fire arms it would almost seem silly not to put time and effort into finding the most effective way to regulate fire arms. Of course supportrs of the NRA and of guns themselves are going to strongly oppose this research and try to do whatever they can to voice their opinion on the opposite of the issue. This article is clearly aimed at supporters of stronger gun regulation and to maybe sway the opinion's of those not. In this article it discusses how research of prevention of gun violence were stopped as soon as they were making strides that were not in favor of the NRA. This article all around has very good information, obviously with a certain purpose. Stronger gun regulations. It discusses all the aspects that need to be looked into as far as guns are concerned including gun violence at home, background checks, distribution of guns and the trafficking of guns. It also imposes that we ask more questions when it comes to guns such as is this person stable enough to own a gun? How did this person acquire a fire arm? Of course the NRA are going to dispute it. Although the author does make a good point in the article when he states that "In 1996, Congress took $2.6 million intended for gun research and redirected it to traumatic brain injury. It prohibited the use of C.D.C. money to "advocate or promote gun control". The gun control debate is very increasingly becoming more heated and important in national politics as well as among the American people. I agree with the majority of information in this article. Although it is one sided, I feel Congress should do all they can to make sure that guns don't end up in the hands of the wrong people. I agree with prohibiting the sale of certain fire arms such as bazookas and high capacity magazines. There is no reason anyone should own one of those, not even for hunting purposes. Some might say that the issue of gun violence and gun control right now are detracting from real problems our nation is facing such as economic ones, but I feel it is equally important that the safety of our citizens is at the front table of Congress. I feel this author did a great job at stating his/her facts and making some valuable information known. It gave me lots of insight on the topic and helped me understand how deep of an issue this really is in America and has been for a very long time. There was plenty of evidence to support the claims and ideas in this article. The most interesting I thought came at the end when it stated that "more than 100 researchers in public health and related fields pointed out that mortality rates from almost every major cause of death have declined drastically...but the homicide rate in the United States, driven by guns, is almost exactly the same as it was in 1950". Now that is something tto think about.

Bipartisan Trouble Clear at Inauguration

The article that I chose to talk about was how Republican Paul Ryan was booed as he left his building on his way to the Presidential Inauguration. I found this story on The Huffington post.com. The article is very short and to the point. People who do not like Ryan's comments or point of view decided to show him just what they thought of him. He was loudly and blatantly booed as he walked out of his building. Ryan's comments about how systems of welfare such as Medicaid and so forth make our country one of "makers and takers" upset many people.. I do not agree with his comments either and while I do believe that people on government assistance should at some point regain personal financial stability, I also believe that sometimes people need help and that is what these programs are for. The article is pretty basic but it shows how some of the American people feel about Ryan and Republicans in general. Not only does the "booing" show the people's discontentment, but it shows how big of an issue bipartisan cooperation has become, especially in Congress. With a new year, new laws need to be passed, and this proves how Congress' work will be very difficult, especially during new gun control laws and aspects of the healthcare bill passed in 2012. The fact is that Ryan and Romney lost and had they won, we wouldn't be discussing this. Obama made reference to Ryan's comments at his inauguration, basically calling him out and saying that we are not a nation of "makers and takers" but rather a nation that helps our citizens that are in need and that makes a strong,supportive nation, not a weak and helpless one with no initiative. Ryan also said he was only attending the inauguration out of "obligation". This comment will only further separate the two sides, particularly the Republican House and Democratic Senate. I felt this was a really lousy thing to say and my personal belief is that if the roles were reversed, than Joe Biden would have gone out of personal choice to support his country. Although this article is not very in depth and extremely to the point, it offers a look at how the American people are feeling about certain politicians in government. It also shows a distaste for cockiness and poor showmanship, which is what I believe Paul Ryan is exuding by some of his not so friendly comments. I understand this is politics but come on.