Lonestar State and Local: I read Crystal Pecina's http://mycountryilovethee....

Lonestar State and Local: I read Crystal Pecina's http://mycountryilovethee....: I read Crystal Pecina's http://mycountryilovethee.blogspot.com/2011/12/helping-others-instead-of-ourselves.html . Although without a link I ...

I read Crystal Pecina's http://mycountryilovethee.blogspot.com/2011/12/helping-others-instead-of-ourselves.html. Although without a link I am not sure of the original article Ms. Pecina is refrencing I do see two upsetting topics in what she has written.

I have some concern with the actions made by both Bush and Perry as I am sure Ms. Pecina does. For the United States to send a former President to Africa to educate women on cervical and breast cancers is certainly a great thing. In Ms. Pecina's article she states that the same important education is being denied to our own US women because of budget cuts. Ms. Pecina says that it is "hard providing this care to low income women." Hard to educate low income US females yet not too hard to travel all the way to Africa to educate the women there? I think all women should be educated on their bodies and dangers they may face. But when it is too expensive to even educate our own women here in the States should we really be out sourcing former Presidents to travel across the world to give the same service we deny our own to others? Many women die from cervical and breast cancers who may have been able to survive if they were educated enough to detect the cancers early on. By spending money on traveling to educate our country is letting uneducated women here die.

Ms. Pecina also says in her article that Perry boasts about cutting two thirds of Texas' family planning budget. After looking at the statistics from  http://texaslsg.org/texasonthebrink/ I think family planning is one of the things our state desperately needs and should never be cut from the budget. Texas is 2nd in birth rate, 2nd in population under 18, and 4th in percent of children living under poverty. Those numbers tell us that lots of babies are being born to people who cant afford to support their children. Family planning is one way to provide birth control to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it. Texas is dead last in percent of pregnant women rreceiving prenatal care in first trimester. And look at the statistics here,

• In 2008, the birth rate for ages 15-19 in Texas was 63.4 per every 1,000 people, compared to 41.5 in the U.S., giving Texas the third highest teen birth rate in the nation.[i]
• According to a 2009 study of sex education materials from 96 percent of all Texas schools, only 4 percent of schools in Texas teach about pregnancy and STD prevention in schools.[ii]
• 3.7 million Texas students are not taught basic information in public schools about STD prevention and unplanned pregnancies, and 25 percent of Texas school districts have no formal policy regulating sex education.[iii]
• 41 percent of sex education materials used in Texas school districts contains factual errors.[iv]

53 percent of Texas students have had sexual intercourse, compared with 48 percent nationwide; 17 percent of Texas students have had sexual intercourse with four or more persons in their life, compared with 15 percent nationwide; and 43.6 percent of Texas students did not use a condom during their last instance of sexual intercourse, compared with 38.5 percent nationwide

It is alarming how badly Texas needs a family planning budget. I believe Texas should look at improving its family planning instead of decreasing it. And by not only allowing for a larger budget to educate family planning we can also budget to educate women on cervical on breast cancer. These are some extremely important issues and Texas needs to make sure the entire state is educated on these matters before cutting spending or taking these matters to other countries.

Senate OKs Changes to Newborn Screening Program

I am interested in the article Senate OKs Changes to Newborn Screening Program, because I have an 8 month old son and this article reminds me of  the cradle to grave idea. Government is involved in every aspect of our lives from the time we are born until the day we die, but how much should Government be involved?

Having a new son I of course am very protective of him and want the best for him. I delivered my son in the hospital and I am sure that most hospitals are made possible or at least regulated by some form of Texas Government. My son was issued a social security card and given a birth certificate, and we now go to doctors appointments every 3 months where he is given shots. Government has had a hand in deciding which shots are to be administered but other than that Government hasn't played too much of a role in parenting my son.

 I do remember my sons newborn screenings but the thought never crossed my mind that I might not want health officials using my son's blood samples for research. Apparently other parents didn't want their child's blood samples being used and filed a law suit which is why state health officials can no longer use infant blood samples for non-approved purposes without parental approval. There was definitely a lot of confusion and it is hard to remember exactly what questions were asked in the hospital but I am sure if asked if I give Government consent to use my son's blood samples for research I would give it.

Although I have no idea why it could possibly be bad for infant blood samples to be used without consent it does make me feel good that the parents won the lawsuit and the child's rights were protected. I am happy to live in a country where Government can help its citizens and still respect individual rights. It is a good thing to have a Government that is there to help as long as they aren't too involved in controlling citizens lives.

Memorizing is Not Learning

After reading I am eager to further research the new STAAR testing to see if it is an improvement. My son is only 7 months old so it is interesting to me to watch his development. When I show him a cat toy and tell him it says meow he may be able to memorize that, but how will he ever know a cats meow without seeing a real cat? My classmate discusses previous testing education where students aren't taught material but made to memorize correct answers. Do we really need students that can recite a table of elements or students that have been in a lab and have tested and experimented themselves. I know that I will be far more proud of my sons creative mind wanting to know more than what something is but also how it works . It is nice to read my classmates perspective on testing, she gave great insight on the downfalls of previous tests and why we need to improve them. I found her article informative and I like that she gave an example of problems she has experienced first hand with her own child testing.

Grants for Texas Citizens

I have nothing against people from other countries and believe that the United States is a place for people to come to live out the American Dream. I am proud that the brightest and best from all over the world work hard to be able to come to our country and graduate from one of our prestigious schools. I dont however think that students from other countries should be able to come to our country illegally and be offered grant money to attend our schools. I believe that grant money should be for students that are in Texas legally. By giving grant money to anyone who comes to our country seeking it without having them go through the process of becoming a citizen we are not only taking the grant money from US citizens, but also maybe taking it from our economy. Students from other countries may just use the US grant money, obtain a degree, and move back to their country of origin thus stimulating that countries economy with the benefit of improved education. Educating local Texas students with local Texas taxpayer grants gives taxpayers a return in the investment because the students go on to get jobs in Texas. Not only may illegal residents relocate but they will also face some problems getting a job in if they do decide to stay in Texas. Like an illegal A&M student who graduated with a biomedical science degree who can only obtain employment in a restraunt because employers can't hire him legally. This student although not a legal citizen was given grants because of the Texas Application for State Financial Aid which only requires you prove that you have been living in Texas for atleast 3 years. The amount of scholarship money given to illegal students in 2010 totaled $274.1 million. While I am all for aiding education I believe Texas taxpayers should not be paying for the education of illegal immigrants especially while there are so many legal citizens who need grant money and are denied.

Insurance plans covering abortions?

House votes to bar insurance plans from covering abortions using federal funds. Is this really going on? People are paying taxes to fund actions that they are against. This article brought to light many issues that need to be resolved. Although I found this article to be confusing what I did conclude for myself about the topic is just what the article concludes. That they are just "accounting gimicks" and that they won't stop tax payer money from being used to fund abortions.
I am having a difficult time understanding the article, but it is a controversal topic I am very interested in. While I do believe that it is each womans right to decide if abortion is the right choice for them personally, I do not believe that the choice to do so should be funded by tax payers. To put it very bluntly if someone makes a mistake it is up to that person to pay for the mistake both physically, morally and financially. People may argue that the same people that cannot afford sexual protection, or are not responsible enough to use it, are the same ones who will be on government funded insurance wanting abortions. I don't think that it is the responsibility of tax payers to bail others out on issues they may not be morally in favor of. I think that this article brought up a very good issue and I do not believe I am alone in my confusion on this issue. This article raises many questions for me and leaves much unanswered. Is it illegal for government to fund abortion? How many abortions are really funded by the government? I will have to research this issue more I do not feel that the article was helpful enough in making me understand the exact details of the issue.

After reading Mauzy's article I get the idea that he is not in favor of Formula One coming to Austin. Though he does not come right out and tell the reader his oppinion the facts he brought up are not in favor of Formula One. Mauzy plants a question in your mind by mentioning Watkins Glen along with the other well known cities I'm guessing to let the reader know that Formula One will not help put Austin on the map because Watkins Glen also hosted Formula One and most havn't heard of it. He also makes a point to mention that of all of these cities who "have" hosted none of them are or will host, I'm guessing he means ever again? Mauzy doesn't give any examples of the outcome in other cities which makes me wonder if the cities aren't hosting again because of a negative outcome. He also metions the enormous cost involved and warns readers of the possibility that the loans granted by government may not be repayed because of lack of profit. Being that Mauzy is a financial analyst he probably has a more acurate prediction of whether or not a business will succeed or fail than most, but can anyone really say for sure if a business will prosper or fail? Mauzy mentions that he believes ticket prices are too high and that even if people go to see the races once they surely won't fork out the cash a second time, especially if bad traffic or inadequate facilities come into play. A lot of Mauzy's opinions supporting his beliefs are just that, opinions. Without sturdy facts to prove that Formula One will fail his article lacks the proof needed for a convincing argument so I believe this article deserves a D.

I mean come on lets face it Austinites already have their sport thats football, Longhorns to be exact, and Formula One won't be taking focus from that anytime soon. So I do agree with Mauzy's prediction of failure for the Formula One track but I do not believe he did an adequate job of proving his point. This article sounds like an opinion coming from a financial analyst not a valid argument of why Formula One should not be allowed to come to Austin. I need to know more. The article says Government is investing $250 million and has economic studies estimating the 2012 race will bring in $26.6 million to the state and $4.6 million to Austin. If Mauzy's prediction is correct that Texas' investment won't be profitable then he needs to build a better case proving it so that Texas won't invest the money to build Formula One. If Texas economic studies are incorrect there needs to be proof supporting the negative outcome of bringing Formula One to Austin so that we can save ourelves the trouble of becoming yet another one of those cities that "have" hosted Formula One.