In response to  Adam Severson's  "Abolish the Pell Grant and Department of Education":


While I understand the thought process of you're right-leaning opinions, I disagree with you completely. Out of all the things to make financial cut backs on and you want to make Americans LESS educated? The fact is, that many young adults are financially unqualified to attend college, and this generally condemns them to a low-paying career. What ends up happening as a result of our not paying for one's education turns into our paying for a lifetime of health insurance for the non-college goer and their presumably large family. Are you suggesting that if one is financially unstable, not cut out for the army, and does not qualify for any scholarships that they should be doomed to live a life of economic hardship along with a cloud of ignorance due to lack of education? This seems incredibly cruel to me.

Blog Stage 7: Abortion

"We really need to get over this love affair with the fetus and start worrying about children."

 -Joycelyn Elders

 Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and commonly performed. It wasn't until the mid-to-late 1800s when states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The criminalization of abortion did not reduce abortion rates, but instead increased maternal and infant mortality rates during childbirth. Many women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. These laws prohibiting abortion were finally overturned by the decision of Roe V. Wade in 1973. Still to this day however, the court's decision is debated. The main question at hand is whether or not to grant rights to the fetus, and deciding when a fetus enters person-hood. The problem with granting rights to the fetus, is that it strips grown women of their constitutional and god-given rights. . The specific right of a woman to make the decision to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a privacy right implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but there are other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. The Fourth Amendment, for example, specifies that citizens have "the right to be secure in their persons"; the Thirteenth specifies that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist in the United States." Even if the privacy right cited in Roe v. Wade were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional arguments that imply a woman's right to make decisions about her own reproductive process.

Government-funded Contraceptives

In response to Juliana Solitro's commentary about government-funded contraceptives:

Currently, compared to other countries, U.S. teenagers are having the least amount of sex. However, the U.S. also has the a very low usage of contraceptives, and greater percentage of ten pregnancies. In fact 1 in 5 babies that are born in the U.S. are born to a teenage mother. If contraceptives were more easily accessible, then we may be able to change these statistics. Many teenagers disregard birth control in fear of their parents finding out. If they go to an organization such as Planned Parenthood, they are charged insane amounts of money for contraceptives. Offering free contraceptives will give young women many more options, and will help improve not only the lives of the women receiving the aid, but also for the unborn child who's time is yet to come.
If making this change for the betterment of many peoples lives is not reason enough, then the toll it will take on your wallet by NOT opting for government funded contraceptives certainly will. You must take into consideration how much it costs to raise a child, and also keep in mind that the woman who is having the child (who was unable to afford birth control) will not be the only one paying these costs. Since the child will be growing up in a poor household, they will most likely turn to other government-funded programs such as SNAP  or Medicaid to pay for their child's health costs. That money will be coming out of YOUR wallet. Compared to  hundreds of dentist visits and doctor's appointments, supplying birth control is the least costly way to go about this problem.

http://politicalwallflower.blogspot.com/2012/03/issues-on.html

Gay Rights Vs. Religious Liberty

Many cases have been popping up around the U.S. concerning the clash of gay rights, and religious liberty. Recently, a home based photography company in Albuquerque has received substantial public uproar as they have been thrust into the center of a new controversy. When a same-sex couple asked the owner of the company about photographing their commitment ceremony, she responded that she would be unable to fulfill their requests. Shortly after,  a complaint was filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission which developed into a case. The owner of the  business argued that when she had started her artistic career, she promised herself that she would never photograph anything she didn't agree with. Being of a strong, Christian faith, she viewed same-sex marriages as morally wrong. The court, however, did not find this an acceptable response and fined the business owner on the basis of discrimination.
There are two conflicting ideas here that we must somehow find a middle ground for. One is that of supporters of same-sex marriage (which is now at 70% of adults aged 18-35), and the other being the idea of religious freedom. As public opinion has evolved to prefer gay rights, the laws are slowly changing to benefit gays and lesbians. This has been an uphill battle lasting decades, still with a long way to go to make it to equality. Just as discriminating against an African-American or a handicapped person as applicants for an apartment, telling a gay or lesbian that they cannot rent an apartment due to their orientation is wrong as well. On the other hand, it is explicitly stated in the constitution that we have the right to religion. To tell a Christian pastor that they MUST wed two grooms, no matter what his opinions on the matter is just as wrong. Can a middle ground be found?

My opinion on churches closing their doors to same-sex couples is this: No house of worship should be required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. But state, and taxpayer-funded agencies should treat everyone equally. Otherwise qualifies same-sex couples should have the same access to public services as opposite-sex couples. Businesses that hold themselves out as public accommodations should be ready and willing to serve everyone. Anything else is discrimination.

America Needs to Open Up the Debate on Decriminalization

"For over 40 years, global efforts to punish drug users have failed to stem the drug trade and instead caused epidemics of violence and crime. Throughout Europe and Latin America, and in many U.S. states, a similar debate is playing out: Can and should the drug war be replaced with drug regulation that supports individuals with health issues and focuses law enforcement on serious criminals?" This is the topic of debate in Richard Branson's commentary for the Huffington Post. Branson argues that strict penalties against non-violent drug offenders is not beneficial to us as citizens, or to the users themselves, but in fact harmful. It costs tax-payers 4 times  more to keep a drug user in jail than to issue treatment. Branson believes our tax money would be much better spent on drug treatment than penalties. 

Branson's article is aimed at reaching those who are planning on voting for this upcoming election- particularly those who are currently opposed to decriminalization. With public opinion reaching about 50-50 on the topic, it is becoming increasingly important to gain the support of those not affected by the policies, but those of who are concerned with the health and well-being of our country. 

Having served with the Global Commission on Drug Policy, Branson is a credible source. He uses statistics throughout his essay which shows that he is knowledgeable on the subject, and has done research to back up his argument.  His claim is  that they only way to have a real impact on addiction is to decriminalize drug use and treat it as a health problem so that addicts are able to get the help they need without concern of being put behind bars. This will help us to stop filling our prisons with non-violent drug users,  free up law enforcement to go after violent traffickers and organized criminal gangs, and decrease addiction in the U.S.. Branson backs this up with statistical data from other countries who have undergone similar changes. In both Switzerland and Portugal when drug use was decriminalized and treatment plans were put in place, country-wide drug use decreased significantly. Branson believes the same to be true for the U.S.

I agree with Branson that decriminalization is a much needed next-step for the war on drugs. Public opinion on legalization of marijuana has changed dramatically in just the past 5 years. A Gallup poll in 2006 recorded 36% of citizens who favored legalization, and 60% who opposed. In 2011, the same poll recorded 50% in favor, and 46% against. This shift in public opinion was more dramatic on this issue than the gay marriage issue, which has become increasingly accepted. In congress, 3 years ago it would have been incredibly hard to find anybody to endorse a measure to repeal federal marijuana prohibition. Now there are around 20 members of congress who support decriminalization. This is still incredibly disproportional to public opinion. 1:2 in public opinion, and approximately   1:27 in congress favor marijuana legalization. This shows the fearfulness surrounding drug policy, but it will, and slowly is changing. 

After seeing the impact of the alcohol prohibition movement of 1921, Albert Einstein noted: "The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced." The same is true of federal marijuana prohibition.

Branson, Richard. "America Needs to Open Up the Debate on Decriminalization". The Huffington Post. Web. 19 March 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-branson/post_3125_b_1364298.html>

Requirements which should be set upon those who qualify for unemployment insurance has been a topic of debate since Roosevelt signed the historic Social Security Act of 1935. Since then it has been a widely held belief that government is to step in when faced with high poverty and unemployment rates- at least to certain extent and with guidelines in accordance. Representative Charles Rangel writes of hit opposition towards the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act in an article written for the Huffington Post. This act passed by Congress institutes many additional requirements that make it difficult for the unemployed to collect their benefits. Given the arguments Rangel makes (or better yet those he didn't make), he is most likely writing to people currently benefiting from unemployment benefits, and those of whom approved of the payroll tax deal. He is quick to point out all facts supporting his point of view, but fails to address any problems that the system may have. It is evident that there are issues with the current unemployment system. Republicans continuously point out that many jobless individuals would rather collect unemployment benefits than look for work, and that there are many people who abuse the system. Rangel goes on to say, "This argument is both insensitive and baseless." While insensitive, maybe, I wouldn't agree with baseless. These problems are real and plainly visible. To pull a blind-eye towards these issues is incredible to say the least. Although the way Representative Rangel forms his argument is questionable , I agree with the overall point he is trying to make. Rangel mentioned opposition towards drug screenings in an attempt to combat addiction but never explained why. If we take a look at research studies, they show us that employment is strongly linked with recovery from addiction. Making it harder for the unemployed to get back on their feet while seeking jobs will only hurt the individual. Furthermore, drug-users knowing they will be tested will often times switch to a more dangerous and lethal drug, such as cocaine, or synthetic cannabinoids such as K2 or Spice,  which stays in the bodily system for a shorter period of time. 

Representative Charles Rangel. "Unemployment and Poverty in America." Huffington Post: 22 Feb 2011. Web. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-charles-rangel/unemployment-and-poverty_b_1295005.html>

I have sat with my fingertips at the keyboard for a good 2 hours... I'll try this again in the morning

An article that appeared in the Huffington Post describes one man's reason why Barack Obama's name should not appear on the Pennsylvania ballot. Thomas Barchfeld is arguing that Obama is not legally allowed to be president. Although Barchfield has openly stated that he disagrees with Obama's policies, this is not the reason for his opposition. Barchfield points out that in the U.S. Constitution, in order to become president of the United States you must be a "natural born citizen". The Constitution', however, does not explain what exactly this means. Since the Constitution does not explicitly define "natural born citizen", it is up to the Supreme Court to decipher its' meaning- which it did in the court case Minor v. Happersett of 1875. This court case ruled that a natural-born citizen can only be someone born in the United States to citizen parents. Barchfeld argues that because Obama's father was born in Kenya, it is unconstitutional for him to run for president.
This is an interesting idea that Barchfeld raises. Many argue in opposition that it has been generally inferred for at least a hundred years that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born in the United States. However, the Supreme Court did make a decision which has yet to be overturned.