According to the Austin American Statesman, “ abortions in Texas dropped 13% in the last year as new abortion restrictions triggered the closure of nearly half the state’s abortion clinics.”  These abortion restrictions, outlined in House Bill 2, banned abortion after 20 weeks, required doctors to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the abortion facility, and required abortion facilities to meet the same standards of ambulatory hospital services. 

Among all of the states in the continental U.S., the state of Texas has by far the strictest laws in regards to abortion procedures. This is a very sad reversal of women’s equal right to healthcare services.  The way I see it, if abortions in Texas dropped 13% in the last year, then we also had a 13% increase in unsafe abortions and unplanned-for deliveries. 

Decreased access to services such as Planned Parenthood is devastating to the female youth in Texas.  Since HB 2 forced the closure of many Texas facilities, Texas women have also lost access to birth control and S.T.D. screenings in addition to abortion services.  Due to the passage of this bill, which Republicans justify by claiming that it makes abortion “safer”, it has become extremely difficult for low-income female citizens of Texas to gain access to sexual health care clinics.

It is extremely sad that in the state of Texas, if someone was raped and didn’t realize they were pregnant until after the 20-week mark, they would be forced to go on with the pregnancy.  This kind of situation would definitely have devastating long-terms psychological effects on both the mother and the child.

            I read an article on the Burnt Orange Report, written by Katie Singh and titled “Greg Abbott: Texans Should “Drive Around” and Ask Facilities if They’re Storing Dangerous Chemicals”.  Katie Singh wrote her article with a general intended audience of all Texas residents, but particularly those with children who tend to be especially concerned about their health and wellbeing.

Singh began her article by giving some history on a recent ruling that states “the locations of dangerous chemicals can be kept hidden from the public (so that terrorists don’t get a hold of them)”.  Also according to Singh, Greg Abbott, attempted to back up his stance on the ruling by notifying Texans that “you know where they are if you drive around. You can ask every facility whether or not they have chemicals or not.”  Of course, Katie Singh argues that “it’s completely ludicrous, and shows no concern for public safety whatsoever.”

Katie Singh also does a very good job at supporting her argument by pointing out Greg Abbott’s connection to the Koch brothers’ industries.  She reported in her article that just “five months after an ammonium nitrate explosion that killed 15 people in West, Attorney General Greg Abbott received a $25,000 contribution from…the head of Koch Industries’ fertilizer division.”  She made a good point at the end of her blog post, which I agree with: “Texans deserve better than a governor who refuses to stand up for their safety, putting corporate interests ahead of saving their lives.”

Randal O’ Toole of The Austin American-Statesmen cleverly argues in his article, titled “Buses are a better bet than rail for Austin”, that the planning of a light rail line in Austin is a waste of tax-payers’ money and that it is a poor transit choice for the general Austin community. O’Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of “The Worst of Both: The Rise of High-Cost, Low Capacity Rail Transit”. His intended audience includes the tax-paying citizens of Austin, but more specifically, the tax paying citizens of Austin who are more likely to be reading his article in the daily newspaper.  The tax paying citizens who read the newspaper are older, wealthier, car-owning citizens who are very unlikely to ever use the proposed light rail line. In his article, O’Toole presents sound statistical evidence of the high cost and low efficiency of light rail lines compared to buses in order to gain the support of his readers in opposition to the proposal.  He presents shocking figures, for example, the light rail line “will cost close to $150 million per mile”, but the MoPac Express Lanes “are costing less than $20 million per mile.”  Additionally, O’Toole points out that “the trains will average only about 22 miles per hour” and that “buses on express lanes can go 60 miles per hour.”  I did notice, however, that he failed anywhere in his article to mention the environmental impact of light rail lines versus buses. Hmm…I guess he didn’t want the average 60-year-old newspaper reader remembering to consider environmental impacts. The logic he presents is simple: it costs more, and isn’t worth it.  I would have to say that Randal O’Toole presented his argument in a clever manor to predictable readers who are very likely to agree with the points he made.

I came across an interesting Texas Tribune article, titled “BP Wants Unspent Spill Recovery Money Back", which I feel is definitely worth a read.  It has only been a mere four years after the most devastating oil spill in U.S. history and - get this - BP “respectfully” requested the return of any unused funds left over from the five million dollar grant they gave to the State of Texas.  Just to clarify, BP spilled five million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico in April of 2010.  That’s a whopping $1 per barrel grant BP gave to the State of Texas to be used for cleaning up after their mess.  After absorbing this much so far, I immediately got emotional and images of poor oil-coated baby dolphins and sad little innocent turtles stuck in sludge flashed through my mind. I thought to myself, what slimy behavior it was for BP to ask for their money back! I’m no marine biologist but I’m pretty sure that the biggest oil spill in U.S. history will have negative economic and environmental repercussions for a lot longer than four years.

I then calmed back down and continued to read the article, finding it cute that Perry’s office “respectfully” denied the oil company’s request.  The Governor’s office also assured BP that the money would indeed go towards a website and other grant programs…. eventually.  Meanwhile, Mississippi is ahead of the game with a “website related to spill recovery funds that lists the sources of money and allows the public to submit project proposals.”  All Texas got around to doing with the grant money so far was purchasing a domain name for what is still a non-functioning website. In fact, it seems that while Texas has been fiddling its thumbs, all of the other Gulf States are far more advanced in their own recovery processes. Well geez, after reading the last half of that article, I can almost see why BP is so frustrated.  How hard can it be for the State Government to get a website up and running?  According to the article, “local officials and organizations eager to do restoration work on the Texas cost are waiting for funds to become available, watching as other states spend millions of dollars.”  So why on earth is the Texas Government just sitting on this money like a dumb duck?  I do not know the answer.  I do, however, believe that this article is worth a read because being informed and asking questions is just as important as getting the answers.