Wrongly Accused

In their post entitled "The Jury's Out," from Thursday, December 13, my colleague discussed a bill that they think should be passed regarding people being wrongly accused of crimes. They used the example of Michael Morton, who was wrongly accused of the murder of his wife and spent 25 years in prison before they found evidence that exonerated him. Now, the prosecutor from that case faces a court of inquiry for withholding evidence that would have prevented Michael from spending those 25 years in prison.
My colleague says that Senator Rodney Ellis introduces two bills that will be heard in the 2013 session. The first is Bill 89 that would "create a Texas Innocence Commission to examine post-conviction exoneration" that will be composed of judiciary people, people from both Houses, and lawyers. This has already passed in ten other states. The other is the "Automatic Disclosure Bill," which would create a statewide standard for disclosure in criminal cases.
I do agree with my colleague, although I noticed that they mentioned that Michael Morton is not the only one that this has happened to and I think they should have included another example. After researching a little myself, though, I found an article about a trio that had been charged with aggravated robbery and one was sentenced to 99 years in prison while the other two took plea deals and got probation. All three were exonerated recently but that does not erase it from their past.
Because of these examples, I do agree with my colleague that these bills should be passed so that innocent people don't have to be punished for things they didn't do.

Update on Planned Parenthood in Texas

The number of clients served by the state's family planning budget dropped while the cost of serving those clients increased in the 2012 fiscal year, since Planned Parenthood is no longer in the picture. Shocking, I know. According to an article from the Austin Chronicle from Friday, November 30, this is the case. The state served only 75, 160 family clients during the FY2012. This 63% decrease is accompanied by a 15% increase in the cost per client. These numbers seem to indicate that the situation is worse than it originally appeared earlier in the year.
As a result of the new funding matrix, which intentionally excluded Planned Parenthood, the program was shut out of any Title X funding. Christine Mann, the spokeswoman for the Department of State Health Services, claims that agencies have reduced their capacities, but infrastructure costs have not decreased at the same rate, producing the 63% decrease in clients with the 15% increase in cost. She says that it should resolve itself over time and return to previous levels.
On the contrary, Fran Hagerty, CEO of the Women's Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, says that when the "bottom tier" of the matrix, aka Planned Parenthood, has been removed, the most expensive and least efficient providers will be the most funded. The numbers provided by the DSHS indicate that the state's preferred providers appear to be incapable of providing services for the many women that will be left without access to the provider of their choice.
Like I said in my first post, what does the State of Texas think they're helping by getting rid of Planned Parenthood? Yes, a small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does includes abortions, but anyone can see that Planned Parenthood is necessary to provide family planning services for many women in Texas.

Punishment that keeps on punishing...

In her post on November 5, 2012, my colleague, Andrea, discusses the additional penalties and fines for being caught drinking and driving, even after fees, community service, and probation have been paid and served. She admits, having experienced the whole ordeal, that it is a very serious thing to be caught drinking and driving, but the expenses that come along with it are ridiculous.
Although I have not been through the same experience, I would have to say that I agree with Andrea. I mean, seriously? If someone has paid their fees, and served their community service and probation, why are they still being financially punished for years afterwards? Andrea states that TxDPS has a program called the "Driver Responsibility Program Surcharges," that continues to take money from those convicted of a DWI offense. This program requires those convicted of the offense to pay TxDPS $1,000 to $2,500 a year for the next three years to legally be able to drive, which most cannot afford and therefore drive illegally, risking another offense and more money.
Andrea believes that TxDPS should cut the surcharge fees in half or just get rid of them all together. She even provides alternative consequences if the surcharge fees were to be cut, like extended probation or more community service hours.
She has definitely convinced me that some things need to change. I would say that she did a really great job presenting the information and that, combined with her personal experience, makes her pretty credible.

Planned Parenthood in Texas

In August of 2012, maybe even earlier than that, Planned Parenthood became increasingly unsavory in Texas. After it was announced that Federal funding for Planned Parenthood would be cut off, the State of Texas scrambled to put alternative programs in place to take care of the 50,000 patients that Planned Parenthood treated in 2011 alone. But these programs, such as People's Community Clinic and Community Care, served only 277 and 275 patients, respectively, in 2011 (kvue.com). The question now is whether or not the programs that are being put in place will be able to support the high numbers of women in Texas that so heavily depend on Planned Parenthood. So why does the Federal Government feel that it is necessary to cut off all funding? And why won't the State of Texas pick up the slack?
When asked if he thought the programs put in place would be able to support everyone who needs it, Perry responded by turning the question around and making it about Federal versus State Control: "Here's the real goal, is to have the federal government respect the State of Texas' desire, and not try to make one size fits all," Perry elaborated. "They basically said if you don't do it the way we want it done, then you're not going to get your money back, and we don't think that's right (kvue.com)."
It is extremely important that Planned Parenthood does well at their next hearing, on November 8, because if they lose, it could mean that thousands of low income women will be without affordable health care.
Planned Parenthood will continue to receive state funding through December 31, and as the Texas Women's Health Program remains in limbo, due to technical issues, Planned Parenthood will definitely remain busy until then.
Come on Texas, if the Federal Government doesn't want to fund Planned Parenthood, the smartest thing to do is to support them with State funds or else you will have much bigger issues on your hands, like thousands of angry women who need affordable healthcare.

Historical Landmark or Not?

"Westgate might be historic, but it shouldn't get tax breaks," reads the headline of an opinion article written by the Editorial Board of the Austin American Statesman. The article argues that the Westgate Tower, a condominium high rise in Austin, should not get tax breaks as a historical landmark because the people living there don't need the tax breaks, and because the private residence has nothing to offer to the public as a historical landmark. It states that the Westgate Tower would be the youngest of all of the Austin historical landmarks and would get the highest tax breaks.
The intended audience of this article is the general public that shares the belief that the building should not become a landmark. The author attempts to strengthen his intended audience's belief by saying that "private residences, such as the Westgate, that are off limits to the public offer little value to the taxpayers that are subsidizing tax breaks."
Credibility is gained when the author references a recent article by Brenda Bell, stating that the Westgate would be the youngest of the 575 Austin landmak structures, and would also "enjoy" the largest tax abatement. With the average Westgate condo valued at $325,586, the average exemption would be $4,693 on a tax bill of $7,330.
After reading the article, I would say that if the Westgate Tower is eligible to become a historical landmark, it should. Just because some people don't think that the residents don't need the tax break doesn't mean that the building shouldn't become a historical landmark in an attempt to preserve the history of Austin architecture. This article has brought to my attention the fact that a fight must sometimes be put up to maintain the Austin architectural history, and in my opinion, I don't think it should be so difficult.

Relief from prison health care costs

"Texans deserve relief from prison health care costs," an article by the Editorial Board of the Austin American Statesman, argues that prison inmates who require a substantial amount of medical care and who pose no threat to society anymore should be released on parole to a medical center that could take better care of them so that Texas tax-payers will get relief from the health care costs.
Because of the nature of the argument, the intended audience would be anyone who does not believe in "do the crime, do the time" notion. The author is aware that anyone who does believe in the notion would completely oppose the argument as he states, "That kind of move may go down hard with Texans who subscribe to the 'do the crime, do the time' notion of criminal justice."Because the audience is so specific, the author provides several solid facts to back up his argument, quoting multiple inmates racking up over $150,000 of health care costs in just one year.
This author gains credibility by citing a report in the Statesman by Mike Ward which covered the topic.The facts are there; statistics indicate that the 8 percent of the prison population that are 55 or older are responsible for 30 percent of the state's health care budget.
Based off of the article alone, I would have to say that I agree. If such a small percentage of people are responsible for such a large percentage of the budget, and there is a way to change that, I think we should. This article has convinced me that it would make sense to allow some of these inmates to be released on parole to a medical center to take care of them if it is going to cost me less money.
Before the article, I was unaware of the problem, but like the article says, the legislature should craft law and policy that would allow the sickest inmates who are least likely to return to crime to be transferred somewhere that would cost less for the Texas citizens.

Inequities in AISD Funding

On Friday, September 21, The Austin Chronicle published an article about a report made that highlighted the Inequities in AISD Funding. The article states that Texas Civil Rights Project director, Jim Harrington, discovered a funding gap between high achieving and struggling schools which shows a "lack of commitment" to helping poor and underachieving kids. Title I cash is supposed to help struggling kids, but instead is being manipulated by high achieving schools to obtain less important things for their own schools. Harrington blames the AISD's administration for not only turning a blind eye to the situation but for the poor state of the financial record keeping, and hopes that the school district will make changes voluntarily without getting the courts involved in the situation. I think it is interesting to find that funds which were meant to help the struggling and underachieving children are being misused in the hands of the people who are supposed to be helping them. Only time will tell what will happen in the wake of the report.