Comment on blog "question everything"

Your blog post is very insightful. I appreciate that you point out the many ways tax dollars could be allocated differently to prioritize a higher education. Typically the discussion of "free" college raises the question of the value of a degree. If anyone could access higher education and obtain a degree, then the value of a college education will decrease. Would students then move to private schools, which could inflate tuition, to make themselves stand out in undergraduate? Would business look for candidates with masters degrees to find the above and beyond qualifiers? 

Comment on: Not Everything in Life is Free by U.S Government

Hello Heather,

I agree that nothing in life is free. We wrote our editorials on the same topic, birth control, however, we came at it from different angles. I encourage you to read mine as well.

Congress cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercising of religion. But why should religious interest groups dictate what policy is written? By this I mean while religious groups may not believe in taking any type of contraceptives, that doesn’t mean non-religious people believe that and we are all covered by the same government. It would make the most sense to give everyone the freedom of choosing what to do/put in their bodies, instead of flat out saying no.

As far as birth control being formally being mandated by the Affordable Care Act, I would like to include an excerpt from The Huff Post. This paints a better picture of the underlying issue of contraceptives: Equality. Georgette Bennett wrote “Why Cover Viagra if Contraceptives Aren’t Covered?

“If sex is to be punished, why should it be only the women? Don’t men have something to do with sexual intercourse? Should they not also bear the economic and other consequences? And, if so, why is Viagra covered by medical insurance, including federal funding, while women’s contraceptives are in dispute? No one would argue that providing our veterans, who have suffered physical and emotional trauma, should be given the means to recover their ability to function sexually. But, for most others, isn’t Viagra about enabling men to have more and better sex? The vast majority of men who take Viagra are 56 years and older. Given that it’s mostly older men who need it, they’re certainly not taking it for the reproductive purposes that some religions mandate. So, why should women be denied the means to have more and better sex? Why should they disproportionately pay the price of lost economic and educational opportunities as well as suffering greater health risks? In the interest of parity, let’s discontinue coverage of Viagra if we discontinue coverage for female contraception. Are women’s reproductive health and life opportunities less important than men’s?”

Finally, I would like to point out that birth control does not protect you against STD’S, only condoms do.

Best,

Brandy Garcia

Original Editorial: The War on Birth Control

Birth control should be more accessible. It is constantly under attack from religious lobbying groups, people that don’t want their “tax dollars” to pay for things they don’t believe in, even legislators. The stigma that’s been created around birth control gives uninsured women little to no resources to access preventative healthcare. 

Many identify birth control with Planned Parenthood, defunding, abortion, high insurance, lack of abstinence. Almost none think of preventative care, opportunity for women, equality,

When you picture someone walking into a health service clinic who do you see?

If it’s Amanda, the girl you follow on Instagram, a sorority girl at Texas State, picking up her birth control prescription so she can hook up with Chad at the next AZD ATO mixer, think again. Chances are her parents have great private insurance anyway.

A study revealed that in 2006 black women had the highest unintended pregnancy rate among all racial and ethnic subgroups, more than double that of non-Hispanic white women. The women that need access to contraceptives such as birth control are low-income women, with either no college education or some high school education. It's difficult to argue that granting low-income women in rural areas the privilege of accessing birth control would lower that statistic and even allow these women to pursue higher education to eventually get higher paying jobs to positively contribute to the economy.

For the sake of argument,  let us move on from low-income women to the health benefits of birth control. Women should just be abstinent if they want to avoid unintended pregnancy anyway.

According to the American Cancer Society, "Women who used oral contraceptives for 5 or more years have about 50% lower risk of developing ovarian cancer compared with women who never used oral contraceptives". Cancer is expensive and sometimes inevitable (just like Erectile Dysfunction, but don't worry no one is trying to "defund" that cause) and if we can lower the risk in women, then why not? Especially when the cost of insurance lowers when the pool of people are healthy. I took a quick browse on the Planned Parenthood website and discovered that oral contraceptives also reduce cysts in the breast and ovaries, infections in the fallopian tubes and help prevent iron deficiencies.

If this isn't enough to make you wonder why the Trump Administration kicked off their tenure with a war against Planned Parenthood by threatening to "defund" them for providing women with abortions, instead of praising them for giving women access to birth control which prevents unintended pregnancies which in turn lower the abortion rate. 

NYT Editorial Critique (Private Emails, Private Jets and Mr. Trump’s Idea of Public Service)

"Private Emails, Private Jets and Mr. Trump’s Idea of Public Service" written by The Editorial Board posted September 28th, 2017 on www.nytimes.com. 

The argument at hand is whether or not the Trump Administration plans to uphold its campaign promise of "draining the swamp". This piece ties together a series of events that question the validity of Mr. Trump’s original promise. 

The intended audience is flexible. On one hand, this piece may be directed at any tax-paying American concerned with the objective misuse of their tax dollars (one might deem the constant use of jets as a necessary to work in public service). This could be anyone that decided to vote for Mr. Trump after his rally last October in Wisconsin, where he promised: "to make our government honest again". In that case, the author's purpose would be to inform said voters that their promise is on its last leg. Finally, the audience could be anyone keeping a running list of their grievances with the Trump Administration, this seems like the more likely audience. 

The Editorial Board makes 4 main claims that they believe prove Mr. Trump has abandoned his goal to "clean up this corruption", followed by evidence that shows this could be possible.

The introduction of the argument was not as strong as it could've been, “If we want to make America great again,” he wrote in an op-ed for USA Today days before the election, “we must clean up this corruption.”. Mr. Trump first welcomed the idea of "draining the swamp" in Wisconsin, which was not mentioned in the editorial. In 2012 incumbent President Barack Obama won the electoral vote in Wisconsin for the second time, whereas in 2016 Wisconsin gave their electoral votes to Mr. Trump. Anyone that followed the race will remember the last few weeks of constant coverage on Mr. Trumps promise to drain the swamp. Mr. Trump abandoning his promise to drain the swap is up there with abandoning his border wall. 

Chief of staff, Gen. John Kelly, is criticized for his lack of control over the President's family and cabinet. This following the report of private email accounts that Mr. Trumps daughter and son-in-law, as well as others, have been using for government business. Jared Kushner had been under fire the last few months over his forgetfulness when filling out security clearance forms. This includes meetings with his brother-in-law and a Russian lawyer. 

Others feeling the burn of media are Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price* for having a “habit of flying private jets to official meetings, with occasional detours to luxury resorts where he owns property, or for outings with his family” and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin for requesting a “$25,000-per-hour Air Force jet to ferry him on his European honeymoon. This request was not granted. Finally, we have Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency “who’s cost taxpayers more than $58,000 for noncommercial and military flights, and is spending nearly $25,000 to build a “secure phone booth” in his office.”

 While it is clear that this piece is condemning the original motives of the president while giving credible events, it would have been more persuasive to also explain that all of these people were hand selected and placed in the White House by the president himself. The same person that promised to drain the swamp.

Welcome to my blog

Hey, Whats up, Hello.