Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

These are my thoughts to the post written by Kristin Deshazo about drug testing welfare recipients.

I strongly agree with Kristin about this bill to drug test welfare recipients, especially those with a history of drug abuse. As a mother who has previously received welfare benefits, I understand the importance of having to receive benefits to feed your family and I feel it isn't fair to those who are honestly just trying to survive and take care of their families. I have personally known people who have children and would sell their benefits to buy drugs. I think its a good idea to issue the benefits of a person who has failed a drug test to a close family member, like a grandparent. I am also happy with the direction that this bill is going and I hope and pray that it helps many children who suffer from this issue. I strongly believe that if a person who receives benefits is going to use it on drugs or something that doesn't benefit their children they don't deserve any type of help except rehab or some other type of professional help.

Domestic Partner Benefits Violate Constitution?

I found an article on The Texas Tribune relating to one of my previous posts Deciding who gets insurance benefits. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote an opinion that stated local jurisdictions that offer these benefits "have created and recognized something not established by Texas law." That something he is referring to is domestic partnerships. He states that it is barred by the state constitution. Republican Rep. Drew Springer's HB 1568, has made it through house committee and is waiting to be voted on in the full chamber. This bill will revoke the authorization and withhold funding from any Texas school districts that allow their employees to add a domestic partner to their healthcare plan.

In my opinion I feel that they are saying the school districts are trying to represent marriage by allowing these benefits when I believe they are just simply deciding who gets health insurance. I mean its not like a health insurance policy is saying that these people are married! And to not fund a school simply because of who they choose to cover on their health insurance policy is absurd! As I stated in my previous post this does not only affect gay Americans, but it also affects straight families who have decided a piece of paper doesn't define their relationship. So they have to have separate health insurance because they aren't "legally married?" This is just making it harder for people who may not be able to afford paying for insurance on their own. If this bill makes it through the full chamber maybe we definitely need to amend the state constitution, but that's another whole story.



Click the link below to read more about this article:
AG: Domestic Partner Benefits Violate Constitution

Sonogram Law

These are my thoughts on the post written by Gypsy King about the sonogram law.

While reading this post it immediately struck a chord with me. While I personally agree with most of what my classmate is saying, there are things about this law I support. I agree that there are many reasons why a woman chooses to have an abortion but like the post says there are women who use abortion as a form of birth control. I feel like maybe we should limit this law to women who have had more than a certain amount of abortions. I feel like these women need to take more precautions instead of constantly getting themselves in this same position. Maybe I am biased because I am completely against abortions but at the same time I believe in the right to women's privacy and what they choose to do with their own bodies. I believe that not everyone should be required to do this before having an abortion but in reality there are many women who do need this law. I agree that the goal should be to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies and maybe this law will help that.

Deciding who gets insurance benefits.

According to the Austin American Statesman, starting September 1st, the Austin Independent School District will offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners, which will include same-sex couples.

The Austin Independent School District will be the second school district in the state to offer health coverage to unmarried straight or gay couples. Austin School Superintendent Meria Carstarphen is the woman who is behind these changes in getting expanded health benefits in the district's 2013-2014 budget.

I personally believe this is a good idea and a step in the right direction. Not only is it taking a step in the direction of same sex marriages in Texas but there are also many people who have been in long-term relationships with their significant other and are not married and some prefer to not be married. In Texas this is called Common Law Marriage. This is very common in Texas and if these people have children together, are living together, and paying bills together who are we to say that they shouldn't be able to carry one or the other on their insurance policy? I myself have personally been in this situation and understand this situation all too well.

I also believe this is a good move for the Austin Independent School District because it will help bring the district an even more broader range of top quality employees and teachers who are looking for this particular benefit that they couldn't acquire somewhere else.

According to the Statesman, the district estimates that about 350 people would be added to its insurance plan under "expanded benefits," which would cost about $600,000 a year. The Austin district employs 12,000 employees.

The University of Texas, and Texas A&M University are pending legislation permitting the universities to offer expanded insurance benefits.

To read more about this you can click on the link below:
Deciding who gets health insurance should be left to local communities.

Drunks to be treated like sex offenders?


In the blog Bills promote digital scarlet letters for drunks and sex offenders, Grits For Breakfast talks about how HB 23, a bill by Rep. Trey Martinez-Fischer, would require sex offenders on social networking sites to make sure that anyone who visits their page would be fully aware of the following information: that the person is a sex offender, their full name, address, city of their conviction, date of birth, eye color, height, weight, hair color, sex, and race. Grits For Breakfast states that there is a law that already requires registrants to report online pen names, but this bill would prohibit them from doing so. I agree with keeping the public aware of sex offenders especially those that are online predators, but who's to say they won't create fake pages and use their pen names. There is no way to ensure this will not happen. There is already a public sex offender database, so as the author of this article says, forcing registrants to post all of this information on any social site including ones where they are trying to find work only creates more harm than it prevents. Jobs already do background checks and depending on the job have their own criteria for who they hire. So this all just seems pointless.

Grits For Breakfast also talks about how HB 133, by Rep. Richard Raymond, would require DPS to create a website for people convicted of intoxication related offenses that would publish their name, address, and a recent picture for 10 years after their conviction and it would be made available to police during a routine traffic stop. I believe the author of this article makes a valid point when he states that this bill has little to with public safety and is mostly about shaming people because police can already access the criminal history of anyone they are pulling over. I also agree with this because how is publishing a DWI offenders picture going to protect anyone from a drunk driver or keep people from drinking and driving period? It seems to me that doing this will only cause more problems for the offender and prevent them from getting the help they need. I just feel like what's the point? Besides humiliating them and allowing people to just be nosy.

I believe that the authors intended audience is towards lawmakers so that they may propose bills that would do more to help offenders not to commit these offenses again. To help them get back into society, find jobs, and lead a more productive life so that they are less likely to commit new crimes. I don't see how these bills have anything to do with public safety and any money spent on this would just be a waste.

Education now vs education then.


In the commentary "Let our children inherit an old-fashioned education," written by Allen Weeks ,Special to the Austin American Statesman, Weeks worries that education today is not the same as it was when you and I were attending school. This article is directed towards parents of youth in todays school sysytem. Weeks argues that since the budget cuts of 2011,caused by faulty projections rather than a true fiscal emergency, many schools are lacking key programs and the fews schools that have been able to retain some of these programs are too far for low income students to reach due to lack of transportation.

Weeks obviously valued his own educational upbringing and seems to put emphasis on the fact that he had a trade to fall back on. Being a teacher and a parent of a first and second grader, Weeks offers his valuable opinions on standarized testing in Texas, showing that the state of Texas is currently overtesting its students. Weeks provides evidence that high schoolers now must pass 15 state-mandated tests to graduate as opposed to most other states which only require 0-3. These tests are overwhelming and offsetting over half the freshman and sophmores who didnt pass their first five tests and are already on to the next five. He makes the point that with all the time spent learning test taking strategies it takes away from actual engaged learning.

Weeks gives tangible ways to solve the needs for our children to succeed academically. He claims that we need to give back the 5.4 billion that was "stolen" from Texas students in 2011, being that we have an $8.8 billion budget surplus and almost $9 billion in the states "Rainy Day Fund." He feels we need to restore these funds immediately.

I agree with his argument being that I am a mother of a student in grade school and I feel that we need to focus more on the development of the children and their learning skills rather than put so much emphasis on taking so many tests. I also strongly agree with his statement that we need a generation of critical thinkers and not accompished test takers.


http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/weeks-let-our-children-inherit-an-old-fashioned-ed/nWWbh/

Ending The Driver Responsibility Program

 

 

 

This article written by Cody Permenter for The Texas Tribune talks about ending The Texas Driver Responsibility Program, which is a program where the DPS administers surcharges on the drivers' license of people convicted of driving offenses, from a minor traffic violation to major offenses like DWI and if the driver doesn't pay the fines their license can be revoked.

The program was started to help raise funds for trauma hospitals. Three Texas lawmakers announcing House Bill 104, State Rep. Larry Gonzales, R-Round Rock, State Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, and State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, state that the program was created with good intentions, but is now causing a headache for many Texans.

The article states that this program has had some very bad outcomes resulting in 1.3 million Texas drivers with invalid licenses. All of this because people simply cant afford to pay surcharges on top of fines. I agree with this bill and believe this is worth reading because I know quite a few people that are dealing with these charges including myself. I am still paying on surcharges from a traffic violation years ago. Not many people know that getting pulled over for something as small as not changing your address on your drivers' license can result in you paying hundreds of dollars if you don't take care of the fine immediately. Many people I know are forced to drive with an invalid license because they have no choice but to get to school or work. Gonzales says that this has created a "compounding cycle," where people who cannot pay the surcharges continue to drive out of necessity, and rack up additional charges from penalties.

The article also states that only 40 percent of the charges have been collected through the program which amounts to $370 million, which the lawmakers say will fund the trauma facilities until 2019, thus giving the Legislature time to find a solution for future funding. I believe that even if they just continue to give surcharges to DWI offenders and not minor traffic offenders, the number of Texas drivers with invalid licenses will decrease.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/02/07/lawmakers-advocate-ending-driver-responsibility-pr/