SEN. WENDY DAVIS FILIBUSTERS SB5 OUT OF EXISTENCE, BUT THE GOP STILL WANTS YOUR UTERUS

Republicans in my home state of Texas groan as the omnibus abortion bill that passed the House dies via remarkable filibuster in the Senate. 

Had they had their way and SB5 had passed, "standards" (read: hurdles) for an abortion clinic would have been set so high that all but 5 of them would have to shut down. It also would have been illegal for a woman to have an abortion after 5 months, because of the inaccurate ethical dilemma of a baby that age being able to feel "pain and happiness." It's actually 24 weeks. 

And let's just extrapolate what raising these "standards" would entail.

 It would mean that a girl who needs an abortion who lives anywhere across the incredibly vast state of Texas where it's highly likely she would have no access to a clinic would somehow have to find money to travel to one of the five abortion clinics not shut down, see a doctor twice, get an ultrasound and have it shown & described to her before she could get the procedure she needs. Is the GOP truly acting on behalf of women in Texas, or torturing them until they align to their draconian moral code?

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: GUN LAWS MUST CHANGE

America has seen an utterly disturbing rise in the number of shooting incidents in recent months. The mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut in December 2012 had a death toll of twenty-six, most of the victims being children under the age of nine. In July of that year, a shooting at a midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado took the lives of twelve people and injured 58. Nowadays, mass shootings like these are becoming more and more commonplace and American citizens are forced to live in fear of their own neighbors. The truth is that there is something that can be done to prevent more of these atrocities from occurring. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that American citizens vote to enact new gun control regulations.

People in general might think that criminals will just be criminals and simply eschew or circumvent stricter laws such as universal background checks. At a Senate hearing on gun control, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin stated, “Criminals won’t go to purchase the guns because there will be a background check. We’ll stop them at the original purchase.” (Castal). His explanation for the effectiveness of a more stringent background investigation process is that the very presence of it will be a deterrent for criminals who desire to purchase a gun.

Also mentioned at the hearing was the fact that, since 1994,  “background checks required of licensed gun dealers… had prevented 1.7 million prohibited purchases.” (Castal). This is a very reassuring number, demonstrating the fact that background checks have prevented nearly two million gun-related crimes. Criminals will still continue to act illicitly, but the clear fact is there is some legitimate progress being made.

A rational citizen is left to wonder what even causes a person to want to commit a murderous crime with the help of a gun. A Facebook follower of journalist Nick Kristoff suggests “these crazed killers, arms freaks…and haters” view the publicity and infamy of mass murder as motivation. Another follower suggests, “Our culture is to blame - not guns.” These statements are certainly valid. Criminals could find other ways to gain access to guns even if they are strictly regulated or outright banned. Although more stringent laws would no doubt aid in the mission of preventing gun-related violence, it is ultimately up to the people of America to alter the way they view violence and it’s consequences.

James Eagan Holmes, the lone gunman responsible for the theatre shooting in Aurora, Colorado was considered by both relatives and acquaintances to be mentally unstable with homicidal tendencies. Before the shooting he had even dyed his hair orange in an attempt to look like The Joker character from The Dark Knight, indicative of his irrationality and detachment from reality. Despite his unstable nature, he was able to purchase four guns, legally, over a period of two months. He also purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition off of the Internet. If he had been subjected to a proper background investigation or a personal evaluation, there is no possible way he would have been able to amass such an arsenal and there is no doubt that all of those people in Aurora would still be alive.

An article by Randy Krehbiel and Rhett Morgan details President Barack Obama’s proposals for curbing gun violence. One promising suggestion was the President’s executive order that “no federal law prohibits doctors or other health care providers from contacting authorities when patients threaten to use violence.” In the time before the Colorado shooting, Holmes was a psychiatric patient at Anschutz's Student Mental Health Services and the University of Colorado. This fact, along with his aforementioned homicidal inclinations, should have acted as a red flag and prevented his purchases. By supporting President Obama’s new executive order, Americans can ensure that someone like Holmes cannot gain access to guns and ammunition.

However, it would appear that President Obama’s proposals are having a tough time gaining the support of the American people. This is why there needs to be a change in the way violence is viewed by the general public. It should be clear to Americans that by pitting together mental instability and easy access to weaponry, a heinous crime is possible at any time in any place. If citizens would take this into consideration, there would be no more mass murders like the one in Aurora.

The new legislation being proposed in Congress is reassuring, but what of this country’s current gun laws? The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The language of this amendment is far too broad and simplistic. It is too malleable to the whims of those who would seek to twist the intention of the founding fathers for their criminal plots. Tom Head, author of an article on the meaning of the Second Amendment states that, “the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place.” The amendment was written as part of the Bill of Rights in the late 1700’s, after the Revolutionary War, which called for an armed civilian militia to stand against a possible British invasion. This was a time long before the Internet, high capacity magazines and advanced modern weapons. At that point, handheld weapons consisted of muskets that took several minutes to load after firing each individual shot. That is a far cry from the automatic assault rifles and pistols of today. When writing the Constitution, the founding fathers were not concerned with a citizen committing mass murder with a gun because at that time it would have been unfeasible. Gun-worshipping citizens would still use the language of the Second Amendment to wrongly support their stockpiling and uninhibited use of weapons, but the fact is people who admire guns in such a way are certainly not the type of people Americans should trust with weapons.

However, there are instances where a rational, mentally sound American citizen should be allowed to own a gun. In Chris Castal’s article describing the hearing on gun control reform at the Senate Judiciary Committee, one witness states that guns can act as “the great equalizer for women.” Women are indeed subject to violence from physically dominating male assailants on a regular basis in America, and having a gun could act as either a deterrent for the would-be attacker, or as a life-saving measure for the victim. It is important that a woman be able to protect herself, but the problem of violence could be addressed by resolving the underlying issues.

Today’s economic climate has led to an increase in violent robberies and muggings, crimes which women are often a prime target for. This increase in crime and the general sentiment of hopelessness because of the economic recession has created an atmosphere of fear among the people of the United States. There are a plethora of possible solutions to this problem, such as better mental health care resources. Someone who would see it justified to rob or to murder an innocent woman for money or material is definitely not of sound mind, and help in that regard could prevent violence.  Also, education for women in the use of self-defense tactics or even martial arts could help prevent needless violence. Using a gun should be a last resort for a potential victim and not a kneejerk reaction.

Enough is enough. America cannot stand idly by and let this dreadful problem continue to get worse. Gun enthusiasts may feel their rights are being trampled on, but with a broader and more open-minded look at possible new regulations, they should be able to see that the purpose of these new laws is not to oppress them, but to save innocent lives.

Castal, Chris. “Oklahoma mom’s self-defense becomes part of gun control debate in Washington” NEWSOK. Newsok, January 31, 2013. Web. March 22, 2013.

Various. “New debates on U.S. gun control from around the web. What do you think?” IssueWiki. July 23, 2012. Web. March 22, 2013

Krehbiel, Randy and Morgan, Rhett. “Oklahoma delegation views on gun curb plan mostly negative” Tulsa World, January 17, 2013. Web. March 22, 2013.

Head, Tom. “The Text, Origins, and Meaning of the Second Amendment” About.com Web. March 22, 2013

THE DEATH PENALTY: A BARBARIC PRACTICE WITH NO PLACE IN THE FREE WORLD

Prisons exist to separate criminals who have violated the laws of society from those who choose to abide by them. However, there are flaws in the American justice system that can lead to the unjust imprisonment and even the murder of innocent people. Due to corruption in the justice system and the moral imperative to protect innocent people from being put to death, America needs to abolish the death penalty.

The death penalty is not an effective deterrent against criminals who seek to commit homicide. The unforgivable nature of the death penalty is ostensibly there to scare would-be murderers from going through with the act of killing another person, and yet murders still happen all the time. The sad fact here is that people who do not have a strong moral center or people who value material objects over life will always find a reason and a way to kill. Ideally, these people should be incarcerated for life, or even rehabilitated into becoming productive members of society. There is nothing to gain from simply taking their lives away as revenge for the life or lives that they took.

It costs more money to execute a convicted criminal than it does to keep someone incarcerated for life without parole or in isolation. This is due to the labyrinthine appeals process afforded to a death penalty inmate in order to have his or her case re-tried in front of a judge in order to have himself or herself removed from death row. This process costs taxpayers inordinate amounts of money. Also, typically an inmate who has been sentenced to the death penalty will spend decades in jail waiting to be executed, which adds even more money to go along with the cost of the appeals process. If the government were to abolish capital punishment, then this money could go towards other things within the prison system that need to be improved. For example, these additional funds could go toward more comprehensive therapy and rehabilitation programs for inmates.

The concept of putting an innocent person to death for a crime he or she did not commit is absolutely unthinkable. In the case of Cameron Todd Willingham of Corsicana, Texas, a man was unjustly sentenced to death for the murder of his three daughters. It was a combination of an unenthusiastic defense attorney, a district attorney simply looking for a death penalty conviction (rather than the justice and the truth) and an investigation conducted by unqualified personnel that led an innocent man to be put to death. This is an example of corruption in the judicial system causing an irreversible tragedy. The arson investigators who examined the fire that took the lives of Willingham’s daughters came to incorrect conclusions. These findings were used by the Corsicana County district attorney to eventually murder an innocent man. Instead of upholding the law in the name of justice, these investigators and attorneys represented false evidence and played politics to try to improve their own reputations and further their careers with no regard for justice itself. From recent findings it is now known that Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent and played no part in the house fire, but there is no bringing him back.

The death penalty must be abolished, even if it means those who commit truly heinous crimes are left in prison for life. That is a better alternative than an innocent man possibly being put to death. America needs to stand as a nation towering above all to show the rest of the world it is civilized and does not rule through fear. This barbaric practice has no place in the free world.