Critical Analysis of Greer's Commentary Regarding Planned Parenthood

    On Monday, October 19th, 2015, the Burnt Orange Report published a commentary written by Andrea Greer titled "BREAKING: Gov. Abbot Pulls Medicaid Funds from Texas Planned Parenthoods". Greer's commentary argues that it was Governor Abbot made the wrong decision by deciding to defund Planned Parenthood in Texas as it would lead to many consequences for the public.
    Greer's credibility comes from her substantial involvement in activism, fund raising, and marketing. She has had a long career in fundraising, exclusively working for individuals and agencies that she strongly believes in, and with much success in doing so. She has worked as a Development Director for Teach for America, a nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening equality in schools, and as Vice President of Development and Marketing for the Houston Area Women's Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing assistance for individuals affected by domestic and sexual violence. It is evident that throughout her career she has had major roles in organizing funding for organizations meant to assist the public. Her credibility is most notable in her involvement with Planned Parenthood, in which she has worked for and supported from being a volunteer to a board member. This greatly influences her credibility because it shows that through her involvement with Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, she is able to understand the organization well and provide accurate information based on her experiences. However, this also shows a possibility that her opinion towards Planned Parenthood is biased because of her substantial support and involvement with the organization. 
    Greer's argument is directed towards the general public, more specifically Democrats and women, in order to mobilize people to be concerned about the issue regarding Governor Abbot's decision to defund Planned Parenthood. She presents the issue and Abbot's reasoning to make the decision, then provides information about Planned Parenthood and the issue revolving around it that ultimately refutes all of his pretenses. Greer argues that while Abbot's decision was based on false premises, it will also cause major consequences for women seeking affordable health care. 
    Greer poses her argument as a response to Governor Abbot's decision to defund Planned Parenthood based on specific premises in which she claims to be false. She provides various reasons and information as to why she believes so. She first provides a screenshot of a tweet published by Governor Abbot, publicly announcing his decision end Medicaid participation in funding Planned Parenthood, followed by a series of tweets published by Greer directed to him, criticizing his decision and premises in which he made the decision. She then references a federal judge issuing an injunction that stopped Governor Bobby Jindal from cutting Medicaid funds for Planned Parenthood in Louisiana, which happened on the same day. The ruling was based on the fact that 5,200 clients would be left without care if Planned Parenthood could not care for them. She does this in order to show that the federal government does not and will not support a decision like this, playing a role in proving her claim that the decision was wrongfully made. Greer then refers to an investigation conducted by the Texas Health and Human Services over allegations of irregularities in fetal tissue handling, and its recommendation to pull funding based on the premises that Planned Parenthood can no longer effectively provide care in an ethical and legal manner, that there are plenty of alternate care providers in Texas that are covered by Medicaid, and that providers should inform clients of those alternatives. Greer attempts to refute these statements by providing the that Planned Parenthood in Texas has not participated in any fetal tissue donations since 2010, and by pointing out that the basis for the investigation was from deceptive videos released by an anti-abortion activist, Center for Medical Progress that falsely portray Planned Parenthood selling fetal tissue. She then claims that many anti-choice officials have admitted there were no violations. She does this in order to further prove her claim. She then goes on to assess facts about Planned Parenthood that also further prove her claim and refute Abbot's decision. She clarifies that Planned Parenthood clinics that receive Medicaid funds do not provide abortions, but do provide a variety preventative care and treatment for impoverished people. It is also helpful to acknowledge that Planned Parenthood clinics that do provide abortions do not do it under Medicaid. Greer then references the federal government's refusal to support the defunding of Planned Parenthood by any state, and even sites an article that proves so. This piece of information is effective in not only proving her claim, but in persuading her audience. In the final paragraph of the commentary, Greer's language is incredibly effective in persuading her audience as it poses a sense of urgency. She lists the consequences that Abbot's decision will have on people in Texas needing the care most. She highlights the statement that "Texans will suffer" under this decision. 
    Overall, Greer's commentary is effective in persuading her audience but not very effective in providing substantial evidence for her claim. Although she provides much information, it takes a bit more research on Planned Parenthood to truly understand her claim. However, that is not the case for coming to agree with it.

Critical Analysis of Glod's Commentary Regarding Solitary Confinement

    On Monday, October 5, 2015, the Austin American Statesman published a commentaey written by Greg Glod titled "How solitary confinement makes our streets less safe" Glod's commentary argues that solitary confinement in prison increases crime and is a great cost to taxpayers, which can be easily fixed and improved by federal and state corrections systems. 

    Glod's credibility comes from his title of policy analyst for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a research institute committed to educating and affecting policymakers. He currently holds a J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law, and primarily analyzes civil and criminal justice, and law enforcement. His ideals may be conservative due to the fact he directly works for Right on Crime, which is a source for conservative ideas on criminal justice. The Austin American Statesman is also a credible source for local news and opinions, which directly effects the credibility of the author.

    Glod's argument is directed towards federal and state corrections systems, whom have direct control over the issue, and to the general public whom the issue affects. He proposes different solutions and programs in which corrections systems can implement to improve the issue, while informing the general public of the issue as motivation for public involvement in promoting these solutions. Glod's overall argument is a proposition that policies can be implemented in order to minimize the chances of solitary inmates committing another crime and allow them to be self-sufficient without burdening the resources of taxpayers and corrections systems. 

    Glod posed this argument in response to California's announcement that it will move approximately 2,000 of their 6,600 prisoners in solitary confinement to general population. He argues that their reforms should be implemented across the country and provides various reasons for why he believes so. He first explains the effects of keeping a lot of inmates in solitary confinement, and then suggests policies that corrections systems can implement to alleviate those effects. Glod claims that most inmates sentenced to solitary confinement cannot properly assimilate in society after release, due to the effects of spending substantial amounts of time in isolation, and consequently tend to commit subsequent violent crimes. He uses statistics and numerical data as evidence to support his claim. He presents evidence that almost 68 percent of all ex-inmates are arrested within three years of release, many of which were released directly from solitary confinement. Here Glod shows that recidivism rates for inmates directly released from solitary confinement were much higher than for those in general population. In Washington state offenders released directly from solitary confinement were 35 percent most likely to commit a crime when compared to those in general population. In Texas, recidivism rates went up by over 12 percent for offenders directly released from solitary. These are only a few examples of Glod's statistical evidence regarding the tendencies of ex-inmates directly released from solitary confinement to commit subsequent crimes. He then goes on to briefly explain why recidivism rates for inmates directly released from solitary are so high by pointing out the psychological effect that being confined to isolation for prolonged periods of time can have on an individual. Many become helpless or hostile once they re-enter society due to this isolation, according to Glod. He also claims that keeping inmates in solitary confinement comes with a price to the taxpayers, who pay much more for inmates housed in solitary confinement than inmates housed in general population. He also uses statistics as evidence to support this claim. He shows that in Texas, it costs $61.63 per day to house each inmate in solitary confinement, while it only costs $42.46 per day to house each inmate in general population. 

    Glod's argument has merit due to the fact that he is able to support all his claims through evidence backed by statistical data. His argument would not be as effective without doing so. The argument is also based on something that affects people's every day lives, which he uses to his advantage in attempting to persuade the reader. He presents his data in a way that allows the reader to become concerned for the issue even without being directly involved (hence, referencing taxpayers and public safety), because it affects the public in more than one way. Glod's ease to sway opinion on an issue may be due to his credibility as it is his job to do so. Although the argument he presents is purely logical and based on factual data, it is evident that Glod's language poses a sense of urgency that works very effectively in persuading the reader. He uses language such as "critical," "unacceptably high," "California's reforms should be applauded," etc. Overall, Glod's argument is effective in its purpose and carries merit through statistical evidence.  

The Significance of Austin's New Medical School

     On Sunday, September 20, 2015, The Austin American Statesman posted an article titled "How Austin’s new medical school is spending $35 million from taxpayers"
regarding the University of Texas Dell Medical school and how it is funded. 
    The article states that in 2012, Central Health won voter approval to increase property taxes to help support The University of Texas Dell Medical School. Travis County voters agreed to provide the school $35 million a year in property taxes in order to support it and other health care projects. The school has already spent nearly $6 million of its first $35 million payment on recruiting and hiring faculty. Endowment proceeds are also used to fund construction and other medical school projects. Although the second payment was made just last month, increasing the total fund to $70 million, the school projects to spend what is left over after its opening by year five. This means the school will need additional support but it is not going to continually rely on property tax money as source of permanent support, so the voters do not have to spend anymore. The school will instead look to the state for additional support. 
     Although, on the surface, it may sound unsettling to some tax payers, this is a positive change for the city of Austin because it supports many projects that are not only ambitious in improving the efficiency of health care, but in reaching out to patients most in need. Central Health will be a vital component of the medical school, giving students and residents work in its "CommUnityCare" clinics to treat low-income patients. Through a partnership with the Austin school district, the school will reach out in educating and exposing underprivileged children to health care professions. The medical school itself will produce excellent health care professionals through its selective admittance. Overall, the Travis County voters are paying for something that is very innovative in changing the way the health care systems works in not only Austin, but in the state as a whole. The state will face significant positive change in its health care system if it supports the medical school in its ambitions. 

Hello everyone!