In a comment to classmate Toni's blog post concerning Ghost voting, http://bigtexpolitic.blogspot.com/, I wrote:

    The idea of ghost voting is just haunting......yeah that one was pretty bad, sorry. But honestly, the fact that this is a way that our bills and laws get passed is extremely unsettling. As Tonisha has pointed out, it is unclear to us as to why these people think it's ok to do this. Ok, maaaaaybe you could say that the people are just acting out of the interest of the people who are not present and are in fact voting in a way that honors the absentees. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I have a really hard time believing that. Regardless, I think this is something that just shouldn't happen. It leaves to much opportunity for people to be misrepresented. More importantly, these votes that could be possibly being misrepresented by selfish politicians are ultimately affecting us, the people. This comes down on us. Are we really ok with people cheating and voting in a way that suits their needs and not the people they should be representing?
    This is where Tonisha brings up an excellent point, make the legislation a full time gig. This seems like it will end the whole possibility of ghost voting. As it is the legislators have such a short session time, they are rushing to complete everything they have on their agenda. Some legislators have meetings and are not always able to be present when the voting is taking place. This is the kind of situation that lends to ghost voting. A full time legislature will give the legislators more time to address all the issues. This will allow for all the legislators to be present during voting and we will have honest voting with proper representation. Even on a personal note, the legislators will probably also be less stressed. This is important because a less stressed legislator is one who can calmly address the issues in a reasonable and logical manner instead of a rushed and apathetic one. There are many things that need to change about Texas politics and this is one of the more important ones, especially if Texans want to be properly represented when it comes to making laws.

    In January 2014 a revolutionary new milestone in healthcare was put into effect. It was the Affordable Care Act or more commonly known as  Obamacare. Among many other things Obamacare will expand medicaid to the poorest in order to cover uninsured people and their families. This expansion will also increase eligibility levels to 138% of the poverty line, have uniform eligibility requirements, pay 100% of expansion costs for the first 3 years, and provide health insurance for almost half of our nations uninsured. But while this sounds like a pretty good deal there are those who not only don't like it but in fact oppose it openly. A lobbying group called the NFIB took the Affordable Care Act to the supreme court in an attempt to repeal it. Because of this the Medicaid expansion requirement was overturned allowing states to opt-out of the expansion, ultimately leaving millions without access to health insurance.
    Arguments against the Affordable Care Act include limited access to health care, low-end quality healthcare and coverage and low doctor payouts. Currently, 24 states have chosen to not expand Medicaid. Texas is one of those states. It is estimated that 25% of Texas' population is uninsured. Statistics show that all the states that are not expanding medicaid are resulting in an accumulated 5.7 million uninsured Americans.
    I have done some research on this topic, but am willing to admit that I may not know everything on the subject. But from what I have read it sure seems like the Affordable Care Act is a pretty good deal. For example if, under the Medicaid Expansion, we are covering more uninsured people they will stop costing hospitals billions in unpaid hospital bills, which ultimately fall to the tax payers. Another sweet deal is that legal residents who earn less than $15,302 for individuals and $31,155 for a families of four can receive Medicaid under Medicaid Expansion.
    There are many more benefits and statistics, but one thing that I wanted to point out that bothers me on the subject of states denying the expansion is how many innocent people are hurting because of it. It seems to me that the whole point of this expansion is to help the poor, the people who really could use a helping hand. From a humanitarian point of view this seems like a great thing and definitely a step in the right direction. I mean isn't the point of being in a position where you represent people to take care of said people. Giving people healthcare sure seems like it would be part of taking care of your people. When did money become a bigger priority than the welfare of people? I understand that there are probably more business, political, and money issues surrounding this subject, but since the very nature of this topic is about helping people medically, shouldn't our first concern be the people and everything second.

    In a comment to classmate PCorpus' blog post concerning Abortions,http://texanregime.blogspot.com , I wrote: 
    I personally believe that women should have the option to get an abortion if they want one. I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that the government thinks they can put restrictions on what women can and cannot do with their bodies. It's absolutely absurd. Some of the people making the laws to put restrictions on abortions are men, men who don't know what it's like to be a woman, who don't know the thought process as to why some women would want an abortion. Just the thought of men making laws that tell a woman what she can and cannot do just seems terribly wrong. These law makers make these laws to suit their own beliefs and values without any regard to the beliefs and values of the people they're affecting. It seems like they don't care because people who want abortions are just wrong and they know better.
    People who say that they're pro life say that they value life and that's why they are against abortions. But how far does their support of the unborn babies go? They want them to be born so they fight for their existence, but then where are they after the baby is born? Do they even care that these babies are being born to people who don't want them and what kind of family environment that sets up for the child? They think the fight is won when the baby comes out, they care nothing about what happens to the child after that. It's not just about bringing children into the world, it's about creating a safe and happy environment for the children. Where are these pro lifers and government officials when it comes to that part?
    Now I'm not saying that women should just get abortions whenever they want. Party girl shouldn't just go out, get pregnant and think it's ok she'll just get an abortion. People need to be held accountable for their actions, but there has to be a better way than denying women their freedom. There a preventative measure that need to be more accessible, parents need to talk to their daughters about safe sex, and people need to realize the possible consequences of sex. Because the idea of a woman who's been raped and got pregnant not being able to make her own decision on the matter because of some people that she doesn't even know says she can't just seems wrong.

               Recently, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has enacted a strict abortion law requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as hospital-style surgical centers and have a doctor with admitting privileges at least 30 miles from the abortion clinic, abortions can only be done before the woman is twenty weeks pregnant, and lastly all clinics must be licensed as ambulatory surgery centers.  While two of these restrictions has met general acceptance, the restrictions requiring a doctor with admitting privileges at a near hospital and meeting the standards of hospital style surgery centers has been deemed unconstitutional.  This restriction will cause several abortion clinics to shut down because of the cost of renovations.  In fact, out of the 42 abortion clinics in Texas, only five currently meet these standards. 

                Senator Cruz is appealing the removal of these restrictions and has claimed he will take it all the way to the Supreme Court.  In an article in the Huffington Post, Senator Cruz made a statement saying “Texas passed commonsense legislation to protect the health of women and their unborn children.  This law is constitutional and consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent protecting the life and health of the mother and child.  I hope the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold Texas’ reasonable law.”  While Senator Cruz claims to be working to protect the health of women, pro-choice activists are offering information and data that these measures are unnecessary.  Activists such as Terri Burke, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, have produced evidence that this will actually make it harder for women to find a safe place to get an abortion, creating more back alley abortions and bigger families living below the poverty line.  She says that because of these new laws, “thirty five percent of the population without access to abortion care and those are rural and, often, poor women.”

                Senator Ted Cruz has said over and over that he wants to make abortions illegal and he has now passed this legislature under the mask of “protecting women’s health” while in truth it is one step closer to ridding women of the ability to making their own choices when it comes to their bodies.  Whether or not you agree with the decision a person makes whether it be their religion, career, life choices, or health choices, no one has the right to take that ability to make those decisions away.  

    In an article on the website Politicususa the author, Adalia Woodbury's main topic is how Wendy Davis keeps calling her opponent out on his hypocrisy. The title of the article is, Wendy Davis smacks down Greg Abbott's $20 Mil hypocrisy on Pre-K. The article not only talks about Abbott's hypocrisy, but also about what Abbott's hidden motives are by his actions towards cutting spending on Pre-K.
    Woodbury lays the ground work for her argument by presenting another situation in which Davis calls out Abbott. She refers to the Attorney-General's discriminatory pay policies while claiming to support equal pay for women. Then Woodbury attacks with her main argument. Apparently, Abbott is claiming to support and improve Texas's Pre-K program while defending a cut of $21 million to Texas's Pre-K program in court. Not only is a statement provided expressing the outrage at such blatant hypocrisy and disregard for the public interest Woodbury suggests that Abbott's true agenda with this move is to return to "yester-century". She explains this as being a time when the opportunity for education was only allowed to rich. With this in mind it is argued that Abbott thinks that educating children for 21st century problems is a privilege given only to a few, in a particular those whit a lot of dollar bills.
    Throughout the entire article Woodbury is careful to always use the word fact when talking about anything Davis does or says, "Davis countered Abbott's hypocrisy on an important policy with facts", "Davis' use of facts...", "Aside from using facts to prove...". It's clear that Woodbury wants to portray Davis as someone who does what they say and only sticks to the truth, while painting her opponent as someone who just throws their words around and does whatever they want. Woodbury praises Wendy Davis for, " proving to be a capable leader" while stating that Abbott is shortsighted and uses, "koch style smear tactics"
    Obviously this article is biased, but it's a liberal blog so what do you expect. But even so I still would have liked a little less bias and a lot more facts on Abbott's part. I am a supporter of Wendy Davis but still believe there are two parts to every story. Even if it does turn out to be true it's nice to hear all the facts. Woodbury does and excellent job of presenting Davis as an honest and truthful candidate. But even beyond that she portrays her as someone who will seek justice by not only doing what she says, but also calling out other people who don't. I believe Woodbury was very successful in making Wendy Davis out to be a shiny beacon of justice in comparison to her grimy and sleazy opponent.

    I read an opinion article in the opinion section of the Dallas News website titled, Will the Abbott-Nugent fiasco give Wendy Davis a bump? In the author's(Tod Robberson's) article he talks about how Greg Abbott's support might fall due to comments made by Ted Nugent, who was invited by Abbott to join his campaign. During a concert Ted Nugent is quoted as calling President Obama a, "subhuman mongrel"
    The author continually says that he feels Abbott is exemplifying "abominably" bad judgement in that he is standing behind his decision to include Nugent in his campaign. The article states that Abbott has not issued a statement of regret, which could suggest that he is in fact OK with his decision on Nugent. Mr. Robberson feels that these kinds of decisions can only serve to damage Abbott himself in the long run. He expresses a deep confusion as to why Abbott would even consider mixing himself up with a man that seems to have a bad track record. Some that are mentioned in the article are, a tendency to make sexist and racial remarks, affairs with underage girls, and being a draft dodger. I think by putting these examples in the article the author is convincing the audience that maybe Abbott is not such a good judge of character or that maybe he's a man that associates himself with sexist and racist which could lead voters to questions Abbott's own morals and character. Mr. Robberson attacks Abbott' judgment many times throughout the article, ultimately suggesting that this is not appropriate as a gubernatorial candidate. He also suggests that even though Davis has taken heat from misrepresentations in the past, that it will be no where near as bad as what Abbott will have to contest with, nor will it be as long lasting. Mr. Robberson predicts Abbotts defeat, even more so he predicts it will be humiliating.
    I agree with Mr. Robberson in that Abbott will have a hard time coming back from this. He has dug a very deep hole by associating himself with a man who has shown that he has many terrible qualities. The fact that he has also not issued some sort of statement the he disagrees with what Nugent says is also unsettling. If Abbott's actions are suggesting that he supports people that make sexist or racist comments or that involve themselves in illegal actions then it really call into question where this man's morals lie. Is this really the kind of man that Texans want in charge?
   

Wendy Davis calls out Greg Abbott on Public School Funding Lawsuit

    In an article written today in the Austin Chronicle by Micheal King titled, Davis Calls for School Funding Settlement, King tells of how Wendy Davis called out GOP opponent, Greg Abbott, on settling the current public school funding lawsuit.
    This happened outside the Rio Grande campus of Austin Community College where Wendy Davis, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, gave a brief press conference. Among the topics talked about, "open-carry" of hand guns and border communities being some of the other topics mentioned in the article, Ms. Davis chose to focus on the topic of Mr. Abbott and the lawsuit concerning the public school funding. The story goes that in 2011 there was a legislative spending cut, in later paragraphs it's clarified that the cut was $5 billions from schools, and then a partial restoration of school funding by 2013 legislature, only $3.4 billion. Federal Judge John Dietz is mentioned in the article as having "declared the current state of school funding inadequate under the Texas Constitution."
    Throughout the Article Wendy Davis is quoted criticizing Greg Abbott for not taking action, stating, "So here we are, locked in a legal battle that everyone, except General Abbott, seems to know is over. He is defending the indefensible." Ms. Davis doesn't just suggest that Mr. Abbott stop halting progress, she takes it a step further and says he needs to provide solutions to the problem, stating, " he needs to tell us what he'd do to improve our public schools." Ms. Davis goes on to suggest some solutions that Mr. Abbott could take, such as getting the Legislature to take care of the "broken school funding formulas and "responding to Dietz's ruling with the adequate funding for public schools." Ms. Davis even suggests the Rainy Day Fund as an adequate resource to resolve the problem.
    I believe this article is worth reading because it shows where our candidates for governor's concerns lie. I will say however, that this article is extremely one sided and you will need to go else where to find Abbott's side of the story. With Wendy Davis' popularity growing this year's election is going to be intense.