Free It Shall Be!

Recently I read a blog written by Hannah Chapman. The blog was titled, Should Contraceptives Be Free? In the blog Hannah explains how the Obama administration provided free birth control under the Affordable Care Act. She also goes on to explain that her worries are that Trump will take away this convenience for Women. This blog interested me because the author gives some very compelling reasons why birth control should be covered.

I recently reviewed a blog that was written over the same topic. The blog was titled, “Contraception Should Be Covered by Insurance” This blog differed greatly in the fact that the author seemed to portray birth control as a miracle drug that allowed women to be more successful, and without it they wouldn’t finish school or get good jobs. For me this concept seemed to be far-fetched and placed too much power on birth control and not enough on personal responsibility.

Unlike that blog, Hannah paints a much different picture for why birth control should be free. First she explains some health benefits of using birth control, which include having a decreased chance of getting cancer, helps with uterine fibroids, and heavy menstrual bleeding. After reading these benefits I decided to research and see if Hannah’s claims were true. Per Planned Parenthood, all the benefits listed are a true benefit of taking birth control. Next the blog explains how birth control can help prevent unwanted pregnancies. I find this to be a big benefit of birth control. I along with Hannah understand that men and women will continue to have unprotected sex no matter the risk involved. The blog also states that millions of pregnancies a year are unplanned. The truth is almost 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned and of those, over 40% end in abortion. Lower economical areas with higher minorities result in the highest number of unplanned pregnancies.

Based on the information provided, I think it is easy to see why birth control should remain free. I think that Hannah provided a very clear argument and I agree with her view on this matter. Taking away free birth control could increase unplanned pregnancies and cost the Government millions of dollars. I especially feel like it is the responsibility of the Government to provide this kind of service to lower economical areas and minorities, as an effort to reduce the hardship an unplanned birth can cause.

            Should race be considered for enrollment into a University? Well per the Supremes Courts ruling in the Fisher vs The University of Texas case it should be considered. Even though the Supreme Court favored their decision for the University of Texas, I still wonder if race should be considered? In 1997 Texas enacted a law requiring the University to admit all graduating seniors that were in the top 10% of their class. This seems to be a fair law based on the assumption that a student who did well enough to finish in the top 10% should be deserving of admission. But does that law effectively create diversity in the admission process?

            Fisher was denied admission over minorities who scored lower on the entrance exams, so based on this she should have received admission before them. This is part of the claim Fisher made. The University upheld the state law concerning the top 10% but after some years they decided that they were not receiving the diversity they had hoped for. After a review UT decided to continue the 10% rule and with the remaining admissions they would consider race as a qualifying component. Fisher was not in the top 10% so she had to compete with the remaining population to gain admission.

            Affirmative action has played a key role in allowing minorities the opportunity to have the same standards as non-minorities. Affirmative action is why UT uses race as consideration for acceptance. As we all know history has shown us that minorities suffer from lower education rates compared to non-minorities. Based on this fact we may assume that without affirmative action, minorities would continue to be less educated and allowed less opportunities to attend universities like UT. The desire for UT to be a diverse university and allow minorities a chance for a higher education is very commendable. UT has stood by the 10% rule and believes top students deserve admittance for their hard work. But they also recognize that minorities may just need a chance to prove they have the same ability as the top 10%.

            There will always be disagreement on the decision made by the Supreme Court in Fisher vs The University of Texas and some would say that with different Justices the outcome would be different. The important thing is not to scrutinize the court’s decision, but rather see the advancement we have made as a country when it comes to diversity. I personally can’t tell you if race consideration is the fair way to go but I can say that I support the decision of the court and hope it will continue to help diversity. 

Birth Control, The Magic Pill

In a recent blog article titled “Contraception Should Be Covered by Insurance” the author of the blog describes why contraception should be covered by insurance. The author starts by stating that birth control helps prevent unwanted pregnancies but it can also help with PMS, acne, endometriosis, and hormone imbalances. I have to agree with the author on these facts about birth control, but as the author expands on reasons why it should be covered, I quickly see that that our opinions are different.

One opinion of the article states “Many women’s dreams now include education and a career. Birth control gives them that choice. In doing so it also helps the economy. If a young woman is in college working on her education and becomes pregnant before graduating, she is most likely in debt and now doesn’t have the option to start her career”. I can’t agree that birth control gives women the opportunity for an education and a career, nor does the author give data justifying such claims. I do understand that the birth of a child, especially for a college student can be a major challenge but numerous women have successfully graduated and started a career after childbirth.

I feel as though the article leans too much on the powers of birth control and its ability to keep a women’s life from ruin. Birth control is simply a prevention drug, it doesn’t give women the power to do great things. The article on the other hand doesn’t address the fact that birth control doesn’t prevent things like STD’s, which as we all know could be way worse than pregnancy. I also feel like people have a false security in birth control and forget that it isn’t 100% prevention. Birth control should be viewed as an aid to good judgment and safe practices.

The main point of the blog is to prove that contraception should be covered by insurance.  I can’t agree with some of the reasons listed by the author, but I do agree that contraception should be covered by insurance. As a young couple on a fixed budget my wife and I faced the fact that her birth control wasn’t covered. Each month we paid over $40 for her prescription and it made things very tough at times, so I understand the need for it to be covered. I know that with the possibility of defunding of Planned Parenthood and repeal of the Obamacare, there is fear placed in women that depend on their services. My hope is that government and insurance companies with continue to cover birth control.

Paid Maternity Leave

I would like to see the United States DEPARTMENT OF LABOR make changes to the Family Medical Leave Act. Over all I believe the FMLA is a good standard but there is one piece of it that I would like to see changed. According to the Department Of Labors website, FMLA is designed to help employees balance their work and family responsibilities by allowing them to take reasonable unpaid leave for certain family and medical reasons. It also seeks to accommodate the legitimate interests of employers and promote equal employment opportunity for men and women. So here is my issue with the FMLA, if it is truly designed to help benefit the employee then I think it should require employers to cover the salary of its employee while they are on leave. Specifically I believe that maternity pay should be covered by the employer. The act is designed to help a family balance work and life, but how does it help if that person is not receiving pay while on leave. I understand that the employee can use sick time or other means of PTO but once that is gone then there is nothing to help support an income. This also leaves the parent with no time to use for an emergency after returning to work. I currently work with a young lady that is facing this in the near future, her and her spouse both work, but they are on a limited income. She recently received the exciting news that she is going to have a baby. Of course she is overly excited but as time goes by she continues to build stress over how they will be able to pay bills while she is off with the baby. She will have the option to take up to 12 weeks off but has to use all of her time. She only has enough PTO and sick hours to cover 6 weeks, leaving her with nothing for a complete year. As anyone knows the first years of a child’s life can result in numerous doctors’ visits and other circumstances that will require time off, but she will not have the time to take. As I’m sure you can see how this would add stress to anyone. My belief is that the Government should pass a law requiring all employers that fall under the FMLA to pay maternity benefits for a minimum of six weeks and up to 12 weeks depending on the health of the child or parent.  Most employers do yearly budgets that account for the salary if the employee was there, so it shouldn’t be a burden to continue to pay when they are on leave. The government could also provide tax breaks or credits to the employer for offering coverage. President Trump addressed his plan for coverage's like this while on the campaign trail and now that he is in the white house I hope that he will see it through. 

Wow He Can Speak!


I would like to consider myself a Trump supporter, not because he’s the best person for the job, but because he is our President and I want our President to be successful. I have to admit that of recent times I have become more frustrated with the way he handles the media and presents himself while speaking. As I tuned in to watch  Trump address the joint sessions of Congress I figured it would be another chance for the world to laugh at America.  The great news is the fact that I was wrong, along with millions of other people that felt the same way.

I found a blog written by Paul Mirengoff titled DONALD TRUMP“NORMALIZES” HIMSELF. As I read this blog I feel as though the author is speaking for so many Americans that have been waiting for the moment when Trump becomes our President. The author of the article really reached to both sides of the party line to show how Trumps speech gave him credibility as our President. I also feel as though the writer shows that no matter how you feel about Trump, we all should agree that his speech was good and possibly even one of the best. As I read this blog I see a person that had little faith in the ability of our President, but by the end is acknowledging what really happened the night of Feb 28^th. The truth is President Trump delivered a speech that was very well written and surprisingly delivered with grace and authority.

As an American that sat and watched the President speak, I feel as though this article is spot on. I think that Trump took an opportunity to take charge of our nation and he did so that night. I sat and watched a man that has confidence in his ability to lead and a desire to unite. I applaud Trump for honoring a fallen soldier, recognizing a minority that has work through adversity to earn an education and support a disabled woman that never really had a chance. President Trump is no perfect man but I do believe that he did normalize himself that night.

Protect or Not Protect

In the opinion section of The New York Times, Brittany Bronson wrote an opinion piece titled “Campus Politics in the Age of Trump”. The meat and potatoes of the article deal with Universities becoming Sanctuary Campuses for undocumented students. Her opinion is in favor of the school becoming a sanctuary campus for the protection and safety of the students. The fear for these universities by declaring to become a Sanctuary Campus, is the possibility of losing funding from the government due to going against President Trumps executive order.

Based on what I have read and the opinion that was presented I have to say that I have a hard time being able to side in either direction. As a student myself I feel that it is the upmost importance for the university that I attend to maintain my safety and security as their number one priority. I also believe that every student should have this same right, weather you are documented or not. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity and with that mindset then we must understand that we will have numerous undocumented students attending our schools. Majority of the students just want the opportunity to obtain a quality education in a safe environment.

I respect the ability of all human beings to earn an education but I also think that the US Government has the priority of protecting all Americans, just as the universities have this same objective when it comes to their students. Knowing this responsibility that the Government has to protect us, I can see why they would be against sanctuary campuses and undocumented students. As much as we want to believe that every person is good, we must always remember that terrorist exist and that they will find ways to get into our country unnoticed.

As an American I can see the importance of our universities protecting their students but I can see why the Government also does things that will help protect us. I think that we must view this situation in a manner that both parties want what’s best for their particular interest group, but it’s unfortunate that their ideas are not lining up at this time.

Remember what you say!

On January 19th 2017, CNN posted an article on their website about remarks that Rick Perry made about the Energy Department back in 2012. While Rick Perry was running his presidential campaign in 2012 the Energy Department was one of the agencies that he committed to shutting down if elected. Now I'm sure your wondering why this is important five years later? The irony in this situation is the fact that President Trump has elected to put Perry in charge of the Energy Department and on Jan 19th 2017 he will sit in a hearing and ask for confirmation of that appointment. I feel as though this is a prime example of how our politicians need to first off remember what they say and the promises that are given to the the people, but I also think this shows a double standard of our government. I don't see how someone can be appointed to lead something that they felt was useless just five short years ago. I find this as a valuable lesson to always remember that what you say, especially in politics, because people will never be forgotten.