RE: "Blog post stage seven: Abortion"

       On August 3rd, 2017, my classmate Hailey Casey voiced her opinions concerning abortion on her blog Politics around the United States. She is pro-choice, with her reasonings being that it is a woman's choice with what to do with her body. Hailey believes that women are put in situations where they feel it is necessary to abort their unborn child without being questioned, especially when a woman was raped and impregnated.
       I completely agree with Hailey. A woman getting pregnant by their rapist should definitely have the choice to not give birth to that child. Another reason abortion should be legal is for the teens, or the woman who can't support herself let alone the child, or perhaps a woman who just wasn't trying for a baby. Any and all reasons a woman doesn't want or can't bring a child onto this earth should be enough.
       On the other hand, Ashley E. argues against abortion in the comments. She states that "the 14th amendment of the Constitution claims that no person should be 'deprived of life... without due process of law,'" but that's saying that the justice system will decide for a woman that she must birth and care for a child that she does not want. Is that at all Constitutional—forcing a woman to endure the pain of child birth for a life that hasn't yet lived?
       All in all, I absolutely support abortion, with hopes that if I ever need to have one in the far, far future that I would be able to.

Blog Stage 7: Nothing Trumps Obamacare

       In a previous post, "Health Care Bill - Yay or Nay?", I discussed the Senate Republicans' revised health care bill. This attempt to replace Obamacare included drastic cuts made to Medicaid, affecting 70 million people. But more specifically, the Senate Trump-care bill fails those with pre-existing health conditions.

       The Affordable Care Act has a provision requiring insurance companies to set premium rates by "community rating", meaning that people with pre-existing conditions can't be charged more for insurance than those without. However, the Senate version of Trump-care allows states to opt-out of offering plans that cover essential health benefits that people with pre-existing conditions need. In other words, the Senate Trump-care bill gives insurers a backdoor way of discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.

       80% of the people are against this, claiming that it is immoral to deny health insurance to these people, when the other 20% argue that insuring them only drives up the costs for everyone else. This disastrous bill leaves 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions struggling to find insurance plans that cover treatment for even relatively common conditions such as mental health problems or diabetes, in addition to having to scramble together enough to pay off significantly higher medical costs.

       People don't realize that as many as 1 in every 2 Americans have a health issue that qualifies as a pre-existing condition. Even as a 16 year-old, I have 4 of the conditions listed on the right. Where does that leave the rest of America? 1.7 million Americans are cancer patients. 3 kids a day are diagnosed with cancer. 5.4 million live with Alzheimer's. And 24 million will be uninsured if the ACA is repealed. Who will insurance companies serve if not for the sick?

       This bill ends guaranteed protections critical for people with pre-existing conditions and that is not okay. The people need to know who will have their backs when they get ill but by the looks of it, it's not the government. I strongly disagree with any reformations made to Obamacare. It's one thing to make cuts to millions of people's health insurance, but its another to cut it from the sick.

RE: "Stage 5: Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood"

       On July 26th, 2017, my classmate from 50Stars blog published a post titled "Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood." They argued that federal funding for Planned Parenthood should continue because it provides many services to, primarily low-income, women aside from abortion. I completely agree with 50Stars's reasonings that Planned Parenthood provides a safe environment for abortions to take place, as well as contraceptions to prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce abortions altogether. However, I believe there is a stronger reasoning for the continuation of funding for this organization.

       Planned Parenthood does perform abortions for women who qualify, but only 3% of their services provided consist of abortions! They provide multiple options for women regarding pregnancies, resulting in "80% of patients receiving services to prevent unintended pregnancies." These clinics help to prevent approximately 560,000 unexpected pregnancies each year. Whether it is through their educational program or by promoting safe sex and handing out free condoms, Planned Parenthood is able to advise adolescents and young adults about personal choices and available options for the aftermath.
       Keeping Planned Parenthood is also essential for those who can only afford their healthcare. Nearly "4 in 10 report that it is their only source of healthcare," with these clinics providing regular check ups as well as more than 4.2 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections.

       The most important feature of Planned Parenthood is one that most people overlook: Planned Parenthood offers more than abortions. All in all, Planned Parenthood is the place to go for low-income families to educate themselves about their sexual and reproductive health or orientation, in addition to access to affordable contraceptives, abortions, and tests for different sexually transmitted diseases. I believe that it's an excellent nonprofit organization that deserves to be funded and frankly, we deserve to have Planned Parenthood.

Blog Stage 5: Contraceptive Controversy

       One of the most popular and successful aspects of the Affordable Care Act was the access it gave women to inexpensive or even no-cost birth control. Birth control pills are one type of contraceptive, or a method to prevent pregnancy. They contain small amounts of estrogen and progestin hormones that work to inhibit certain functions of the female reproductive system, such as ovulation. As long as the individual stays on that medication, they are unable to get pregnant. However, many women also take the pills to lessen acne, regulate their menstrual cycles, and alleviate menstrual cramps as well as reduce their risk of developing endometrial or ovarian cancers and cysts in the breasts and ovaries.

       On January 11, 2017, an amendment to require insurance companies to continue covering birth control was rejected by the Senate Republicans as they moved forward on their process of repealing the Affordable Care Act. About 55 million women are receiving contraceptives cost-free, saving the average pill user $255 a year. Now a days, a 24-count box of condoms costs just $15, yet they are still given out for free at health clinics while the cost of birth control ranges from $0-50 a month, depending on the type.  Most women would demand for this to continue, but that's the way life works.

       Contraceptives are primarily used to prevent pregnancies but having sex is a personal choice and a personal responsibility. There are many things we do that put us in potential risk of a health issue but we must pay for the consequences, literally. Pregnancy is a big issue but it should not be prioritized over any other health condition.
       The continuation of coverage for oral contraceptives for women isn't just covered with a snap of the finger either. Making things "free" only means everyone will be paying for it in their taxes, but nobody should be paying for birth control except themselves. We shouldn't use insurance for regular expenses -- car insurance doesn't cover gasoline, health insurance shouldn't cover toothpaste or birth control. It will create less competitive markets on those everyday items, resulting in raised prices later on.

       The U.S. government was right to terminate the insurance coverage for women's contraceptives. These are personal necessities that aren't being used by every single women. So unfortunately, contraceptives should not be "free" under insurance, seeing as it would only raise their real cost and unfairly force others to pay for them.

Blog Stage 4: Democrats Propose A Better Deal? Nope.

       On July 24, Kevin Gosvtiola from Shadow Proof issued an article titled "Democrats Still Don't Have 'A Better Deal' For Working People" where Senator Chuck Schumer of the Democratic Party reveals a proposal for the working people.

     Over the past 8 months, the Democratic Party has struggled to construct any kind of proposal as an alternative to trusting President Trump. Schumer claims that they will "increase people's pay," "reduce their everyday expenses," and "provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st century economy." The article also mentions breaking up bigger companies as well as addressing the issues of over priced, lifesaving prescription drugs.

       This article argues that the Democrats are doing no better to serve the people and raise the minimum wage or lower the price of prescriptions than the Republicans are with repealing and replacing Obamacare. This plan to give employers, particularly small businesses, a large tax credit to train workers for unfilled jobs translates fairly closely to presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's offer in June 2015 for tax credits for "every apprentice hired as a way to boost employment among young adults." The Democrats should not be allowed to sell this as a new bargain for workers when it is what the party has tried to sell to working people before. Other parts of the new deal have also been proposed, like when Senators Amy Klobuchar and Bernie Sanders suggested the importation of drugs from Canada as a way to control the cost of prescription drugs.

     This article is targeted for anyone who, even slightly, leans toward the democratic side. This should be a huge eye-opener for the public to realize that the Democrats are just as much in a rut as the Republicans. The Democrats cannot and will not promise the working people all that much so long as they continue to pass off old ideas.

Blog Stage 3: Health Care Bill - Yay or Nay?

       The article "A Scary New Senate Health Care Bill" was published by the New York Times on July 13th, 2017. The editorial board consists of 14 very credible critics that wrote this post intended for the sick.

       Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, (pictured on the left), released a new proposal to overhaul the Affordable Care Act that lacked the votes to replace former president Barack Obama's 2010 health-care law. U.S. Senators Susan Collins or Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky are opposed to the bill because it simply hasn't improved. The Affordable Care Act has provided medical coverage for millions of Americans and has grown more popular with the people.

       The main argument of the article is that this revised legislation must not be passed because it will only do more harm than good. The original bill would leave 22 million people without health insurance and McConnell's changes will only increase that. It also makes impactful cuts to Medicaid, which provides health care to over 70 million people. This bill makes it extremely difficult for those with pre-existing medical conditions to afford the treatment they need and others who become sick in the future to be unable to afford it as well.

       I agree with the author that the new version of the health-care bill is not beneficial at all but is actually damaging. The bill targets the sick and helpless but also expands the use of tax-free health savings accounts, which is advantageous to the richer families. I believe the Affordable Care Act is exactly what this new bill isn't: affordable. 

Blog Stage 2: Trump's Approval Rating Drops

       On July 16th, 2017, Gary Langer from ABC News wrote an article called 6 months in, a record low for Trump, with troubles from Russia to health care (POLL). This article discusses the 36% approval rating given to Donald Trump at the 6-month mark of his presidency after his son-in-law, and campaign manager, met with a Russian lawyer during the campaign. The polls also show that Americans with a 2:1 ratio dislike the Republican's replacement health care plan and actually prefer Obamacare.

       I recommend this article because it displays the lack of trust in Trump to negotiate with other world leaders, let alone to lead this country. The people are speaking and many simply believe that our country's world leadership will grow weaker under President Trump.