SEX... What you do and don't know and what Texas "wants" you to know.

HOORAY! IT’S A GIRL! So exactly what age, when and how do I explain or give her the “talk”? I’ll just make sure she takes sex ed. 

Well, if you live in Texas, the only sex education you’re going to get is by abstinence-only or close to none. Not that teaching sex through abstinence isn’t effective, but by definition, 

ab·sti·nence

 noun \ˈab-stə-nən(t)s\

: the practice of not doing or having something that is wanted or enjoyable : the practice of abstaining from something

Let’s be honest, what teenager is going to abstain from having sex by telling them not to do it and wait until marriage? There is more to sex beyond the preaching of abstinence, and in my opinion, the important information, facts and truth about sex are being withheld from teaching due to religious reasons. In fifth grade, my parents did not allow me to take sex education so I didn’t know a thing about sex or the reproductive system. Had I taken sex ed in fifth grade, I wouldn’t have gone first to my dad about my very first visit from my lady friend or thought I was dying! My family is Catholic and I was raised that way, yet I’m not one bit religious. I was raised that you had to be a virgin and married before you can have sex, that premarital sex and having a child out of wedlock was a huge “SIN”. Well, I did everything backwards so I guess that makes me a sinner and I’m going to hell!

I believe comprehensive sex education is the most highly effective and best way of educating teenagers about sex and the possibilities and/or outcomes, for example, unplanned pregnancy or STDs. According to The State Sex Education Laws in Texas, schools by law are not required to provide sex education or information about STDs/HIV/AIDS, however, if a school district chooses to provide such courses, information on abstinence until marriage must be included. Honestly, does Texas or the Republican Party truly think by teaching abstinence-only sex education really effective? Or, by teaching abstinence they are hoping that their now current teenagers won’t get that same feelings of emotions, desire or urge and act on those feelings like they once did as teenagers? Ah, interesting! NARAL Pro-Choice Texas states that repeated studies show that abstinence-only education did not stop teens from having sex or reduce sexual activity.

I came across an article that sparked my interest published in The Texas Tribune. In Texas, Less Progress on Reducing Teen Pregnancy. In the article, the now 21 year old mother of two, Charmaine Carbs, states how at 17 dropped out of school after getting pregnant, not receiving sex education at school, no knowledge about pregnancy risks and ended up in a homeless shelter after her second child. Charmaine thinks she may not have gotten pregnant if she had more support.

In all reality, teaching sex by telling them to not have sex and wait until marriage, we are denying them the real important knowledge of what could effect or change their lives. Good or bad. I mean we were all teenagers once at one point. Do you truly believe with abstinence-only sex education that you would have abstain from having sex? Like I said, I guess I’m a sinner and I’m going to hell.

It's MY Body....Not Your's!!

Since when was my body under the control of other’s decisions and choices? I thought we were in control of our own body. No? America is not much of a free country if they are going to deny me a service that I wish to have if I knew it was the right choice for me. What’s the purpose and meaning of “I have the right” if government is saying no to our rights?

Abortion has been a topic of debate for quite some time now and I came across an article that caught my interest entitled “Women’s and Children’s Health Suffers in States Like Texas With More Abortion Restrictions” written by Natalie San Luis, published October 1, 2014 in a Texas political based blog Burnt Orange Report. In the article, Ms. Luis provides information from research reports, government data and studies conducted. Sources include Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health. According to a study they have conducted, it was reported that “states with more abortion restrictions have the poorest health outcomes for both women and children.” The five topic areas of health indicators that were analyzed during the study were: abortion restrictions, women’s health outcomes, children’s health outcomes, social determinants of health, and policies supportive of women’s and children’s well-being.

In an article “Recipe for Disaster” by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the author states that it’s an “insidious and devastating move” for limiting women’s access to abortion services. The article addresses procedures like liposuction, vasectomy, colonoscopy, and D&C after a miscarriage childbirth are also serviced in facilities that do not meet the requirements of a Ambulatory Surgical Center or mini-hospital. Not only are these procedures not required to be done in facilities that meet requirements, these procedures have rates of complication equal to or higher than abortion. So how is abortion's health risk any different from the other procedures provided? I think that if the other procedures are just as equivalent to abortion, then they should all be required to be serviced at facilities that meet requirements of a hospital. It's not about the health risk, it's firm anti-abortion and pro-life believers. 

Ms. Luis states “until Pro-Life and Jodie Laubenberg team up to fully fund pap smears and pre-K education, these laws are dangerous, extreme, and a poor substitute for the health care policies that Texans actually need.” 

As a result, Ms. Luis definitely did her research to back up her argument and provided her sources. I definitely agree that these laws are extreme and a poor substitute for health care policies. They are not thinking about the health, safety or the well-being of women, but of what they believe is “the right thing.” What exactly is “the right thing” for me, you, anyone? I thought our life was the decision of our own choosing, not in the decision or choices of others. Our freedom and rights are useless otherwise.

Hours of work and a little paycheck?!

I keep telling myself that one day I will hit the lotto. I can only dream, but hey, you’ll never know. I can be the next big millionaire. Unless you were born in a family with money, some of us average working citizens are killing our backs working long hours and over time just to put food on the table and make rent on time. I’ll admit, I’m a little bitter about it because most of them are just your typical spoiled brats (ex: E!’s reality show Rich Kids of Beverly Hills) who don’t know what hard work is and will likely never know.

An opinion piece by an unknown writer with the heading of “Congress needs to increase the minimum wage” found on the Dallas News, it seems like Congress is the target interest for attention. The writer did not do a good job persuading because it definitely did not persuade me. In the article the writer states “minimum wage erodes buying power of low-paid workers” and that an increase would benefit Texas. Texas has a higher share of low pay workers on the edge of poverty with Dallas being the third with the highest poverty rate among major U.S. cities.

At sixteen, my first job, I was paid $5.50/hour. I can definitely relate to those who have worked hard and long hours to earn a small paycheck every two weeks. Starting from $5.50/hour with no work experience, I’ve moved up to $16.48/hour after years of experience. I’ve always been a hard worker and I’ve worked hard to prove myself within a company, so yes, I do feel that with my years of work, experience and dedication that I should be paid what I deserve.

According to the statistics obtained by the writer from the “Future Dallas” report, Boston and Washington, D.C. showed the worse income inequality. I’ve worked years to prove myself and worked my way up to $16/hour so exactly how is it “equal” to give someone who has no/less work history or experience as myself the same base pay rate that took me years to earn? Honestly, wouldn’t you be pissed? 

The writer then goes on to state that even with a rise in minimum pay, it’s not a certain way out of poverty because “better education and skills are the answers to poverty.”  The article is then finished off with its time to help low-income workers by giving them a boost in pay so they can help themselves. I’m not exactly sure what the writer is trying to say. Raise minimum pay so we’re not in poverty, yet it isn’t the key out of poverty because education and skill is the answer to poverty? I’m not arguing that I am against raising minimum pay because believe me I’ve been there. I am a broke, single mother, working, college student and I have busted my butt off working a full time job at the hospital, part time for my family business, going to school part time all while raising a five year old at the same time. I do know how important it is to have an education and how it can benefit my future. If you want something you have to work hard for it to earn it and with my years of hard work earned me a higher starting pay rate and to give others with no/less experience and qualifications does not seem fair or equal.

Overall, the article was an interesting read and the writer provided lots of information, however, I feel the clarity of the article was not convincing.