Blog 5

     Texas moves to kick Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid, written by Chuck Lindell, state capitol reporter and staff member of the American-Statesman, is an editorial that broadly describes the most recent clash between government and women health clinics. In a letter written by Stuart Bowen Jr., inspector general of the Texas health and human service commission, on Monday announced that Texas would no longer allow Planed Parenthood to be funded as a Medicaid provider. The reason being that new evidence had arisen against doctors of the organization, who on video seem to be associated with fetal tissue research. The heavy claim has left Planned Parenthood with the choice of either allowing its de-funding or to challenge the allegations. Although, at the moment no action has been made from the organization, a court case in the very near future can be predicted.
     At first the writing can appear leaning to one side of the debate, but for the most part shows no clear side. That is until you compare it to other articles covering the same story like, Texas Removes Planned Parenthood From Medicaid Program on nbcnews.com. In this article the readers are given straight forward information; removal of Planned Parenthood, video proof, Louisiana, quotes from both sides, questionable video conclusion. There is absolutely no inclination to any side, only minimal clear cut info that is easy to understand and quick to read. On the other hand, Lindell doesn't make any direct statements indicating the removal of Planned Parenthood. Instead an overlooked but notable portion of the editorial consist of the sections in which he highlights the only two choices left for Planned Parenthood to decide over, either do nothing or take legal action. In emphasizing these parts one can assume that the writer is leaning towards the recovery of Planned Parenthood. Even more important to understand is that even though the State has ordered for their(PP) removal, it does not mean the end for the organization. Government may be powerful but it obeys by the same law that we all do and anyone who feels that they've been wrongfully convicted of something can challenge the State in court. So when Stuart Bowen Jr. sent the removal letter to Planned Parenthood it was understood that it was only a small step in the unitary strategy by Republicans to cut costly health services off the payroll.

"Monday’s action came as Republicans across the nation have made it a priority to strip money from Planned Parenthood..." 

     In addition, the use of certain words "strip", "according" and "suggested" when talking about Bowen or Republicans, shows Lindell's negative opinion over them. Which leads me to believe that his intended audience includes: democrats, liberals, women and young adults.  

"Texas moves to kick Planned Parenthood out of  Medicaid" 

      The wording I believe is no coincidence, "moves" and "kick" are words that correlate with a game. The tennis matches between Government policy and Planned Parenthood have been covered throughout U.S history for the past 100 + years. The players: politicians and institutions change over time, even so they never fail to keep a spectator's eye balls glued to the ball, back and forth, back and forth. And of course things get tense and a clear winner at first may be hard to identify, but luckily the outcome is always the same. 100+years... not much has changed.

PPH:1  GOV:0

      At the end of the editorial, Lindell provides an array of quotes from elected officials from both sides of the debate. The use of their opinions over the matter is like providing special commentators to re account the match. This addition to the writing further proves the logic of a game. Like the sports fans in a real game we may feel that when our team wins, we win or when they lose, we lose. That is also the type of bond made between citizens and political parties. I believe that Lindell's claim is to understand the difference between right from wrong, regardless of your partisanship. Sometimes the right thing like providing affordable health care services for women can be get shadowed over abortions. Don't miss the sky over a few grey clouds.

Comment Critique

The Austin American-Statesmen, is the online news source chosen for this blog. More gun on campus will not make us safer by Editorial Board(the writers of this commentary are editors from the Austin American Statesmen), is a short article found on the sites OPINION tab. It's political and social context is directed to young adults especially those in higher education. Due to the rise in school shootings, the topic of gun control has become a popular debate.

In response to the massive record of school shootings in the U.S. many people have shown extreme concern over the fluidness that goes into obtaining a gun. The fact that many of the shooters were reported to have suffered from serious mental illnesses is repeatedly looked over. Recent studies have shown that a very large percentage of students in college suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide. The gravity of the situation has been noted by the president who stands with the people's concerns, but with congress in disagreement, nothing has been done in resolving the problem. The students, staff members, parents of students, and even the president have spoken, and they stand behind strict gun control. It's alarming that their voices aren't heard by the legislative branch even after indication that the attacks show no inclination of decelerating. 

In reference to the title it serves as a claim, More guns on campus will not make us safer. The choice of the word, us, indicates the directed audience is young and in college. In considering that mass shootings are becoming more and more frequent, it is appropriate for the writers to take the direction of educating students in the dangers of allowing guns on campus. 

The first focal point, is the numbers,  "142 school shootings and nearly 1,000 mass shootings"(Par. 3)  in the time span of three years. This allows for immediate emotional response from the readers, who may have been surprised to learn about such high numbers. In addition, in order to solidity their data the author(s) name their source, The Guardian's database.

The next thing was to identify the big names that support their claim. Opening with the Chief of Command aka. The President, UT Systems Chancellor William McRaven and moving on to more intimate supporters like school faculty members, students, and parents. In incorporating different levels of people who also share their same point of view broader connections can be made with a array of personalities.

The articles main source of evidence are the statistics, records and recent studies found about mass shootings. By showing that a big ratio of the shooters fit a certain profile and emphasizing that if guns weren't so attainable in the U.S., many of the tragedies could have been avoided. The closing statement urges individuals to take part in speaking out on gun laws and to not give into the notion that a gun for a gun in the hands of students will not subside the number of school assaults that occur.

XOXO x-ray