Help in Mexico

A lot is going on with our Southern neighbors at the moment.  After reading Don't Lose Faith in Mexico's Recovery on the Austin American Statesman by Antonio Garza, US citizens should re-think negatively about us helping Mexico.  Garza mentions how the drug war in Mexico is not so much the US' biggest threat.  With that being said, Garza also believes that it wouldn't hurt to offer a little assistance by bringing the US President and Mexico's President together to somehow better this drug war.  The author says that the Mexico's recent President has already captured many of the drug lords, which has had a significant change in the amount of deaths as well.  The author is trying to convince the citizens of the US that read her commentary, that Mexico not only needs our help, but it would also bring a strong bond in the future between these two countries.

In this commentary I fully agree with Garza.  I also believe that Mexico could use a little help from the US in all the drug wars and deaths caused by this horrific problem.  I mean sure they've captured many drug lords, but that still hasn't fully resolved the problem.  From experience, the streets in Mexico are like those of a ghost town.  People are having to hide out in their homes and quit their jobs or close their businesses so that they won't be killed nor asked for money from the drug lords.  Mexico has never been too safe to walk the streets, but now it's gotten way worse.  You can't even walk the streets in plain daylight.  People shouldn't have to live in fear everyday because Mexico is ran by a President not by drug lords, right?  Like Garza has mentioned, bringing our two Presidents together to join forces in fighting the drug lords would create a pact between these two countries and this would benefit us down the road.  It might not benefit us right now, but it's good to have allies because you never know what could happen.  I say we help Mexico if we are able to and feel accomplished in saving the lives of people in Mexico.

With or Without the Planned Parenthood?

The blog The Brief: Top Texas News for March 9, 2012 On The Texas Tribune explains to Texans a bit about Governor Perry's attempt to sustain the Women's Health Program alive regardless of funding from the Federal Government or not.  Basically they are trying to say that Perry wants to keep the program alive, yet it wants to get rid of one of the major providers, Planned Parenthood, for the program even though about 130,000 participants receive services from them.  They claim that Planned Parenthood should be eliminated from being a part of the Women's Health Program only because it involves abortions in their services.  They also let us know that the Obama administration isn't very fond of that idea and they will not provide funding for Texas' Women's Health Program if that happens.  Agreeing with Perry to keep the program in Texas is great, but not so much encouraging to do away with Planned Parenthood.

I honestly believe that keeping the Women's Health Program is a necessity for the Health and Human Services Commission.  Getting Medicaid from the HHSC is based on low income and it's very hard to get into the program unless you completely don't have a job or have a large number of kids and don't make enough.  Having the Women's Health Program also is for people with low income, but it's more flexible in getting accepted into the program and you can still have an okay paying job.  I agree and am behind Perry in keeping the program, but I disagree with him in doing away with Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood is getting criticized for abortions, but Perry isn't looking beyond that.  I feel like he should look more on what all Planned Parenthood has to offer other than just abortions.  It's not like abortions are funded by the program anyway, so why should it matter?  Let's keep Planned Parenthood alive as well; we need their other services.