Planned Parenthood

            Monday, April 25, 2011, Steven Kreytak, an American-Statesman Staff published: “Fired bus driver gets $21,000 settlement after refusing ride to Planned Parenthood.”  This Austin American-Statesman article adds another addition to the on going Planned Parenthood/women’s rights controversy.  

A $21,000 settlement has been paid by the Capital Area Rural Transportation System, on a lawsuit filed last year in U.S. District Court in Austin, by a driver who was fired for refusing to take two women to a Planned Parenthood clinic last year. 

           Edwin Graning, an employee with the nine-county public transportation system, known as CARTS, filed a lawsuit that claimed officials with CARTS discriminated against him based on his religion.  In the lawsuit, Mr. Graning stated: he refused to drive the women because he had been “concerned that he might be transporting a client to undergo an abortion.”  In January 2010, after Mr. Graning was called to take the women to Planned Parenthood, he called his supervisor “and told her that, in good conscience, he could not take someone to have a abortion.”  Following Mr. Granings decision, he was fired. 

           The Capital Area Rural Transportation System board members approved the lawsuit settlement after determining the cost of defending the lawsuit could exceed the settlement amount.  However, Mr. Graning is no longer allowed to seek employment again with the transportation system.  Graning said it was a “fair settlement.”  David Marsh, general manager of the Capital Area Rural Transportation System, said that because of Mr. Graning’s case, officials have begun making it clear when drivers are hired “that we have a job to do and we don’t decide what destinations are.”

          I believe that Mr. Graning was rightfully fired; however, I do not believe that he should have been paid out that amount of money or any money at all.  He was not fired for discriminating against his religion, as he may believe, he was fired for not doing his job.  It frustrates me being a woman, and seeing this is just another area in reality that we are being discriminated on.   I truly hope one-day women, as individuals, will have our own rights for us to decide and not for everyone else to decide for us as a group of women.

Your Rights

On her blog, “Guns= Bad News Bears”, Samantha Johnson, posted her opinion towards the article, “Texas Poised to Pass Bill Allowing Guns on Campus,” she read on Yahoo.  In her blog, which is directed towards Texas residents, she informs the audience that she believes the bill should not be passed, to allow guns on campus.  Although her blog provided one persons direct quote, the article needs more facts and evidence.  These two items also need to be provided from both sides of the argument.  If Johnson was to provided facts and evidence from both sides, her article would have more substance to hold up her opinion of the argument.  
Johnson states:  “if guns are allowed on campuses I think that there will be a much greater risk of people getting upset and acting irrationally, and if that irrational person has a gun on them, there is no telling what could happen.”  The assumption the argument relies on is that every student may carry a hand gun or the entire outcome of this bill being passed will be negative.  Unfortunately, Johnson does not support her argument with many facts.  However, she has provided opinions that were provided to the Yahoo article, by other people and she does state the bill should not be passed.
No, I do not believe the argument is successful and it does not convince me.  It does not convince me because, I do not have enough facts to base a decision on and I only read one side of the story.  Initially, I believed allowing anyone to carry handguns on campus is not a good idea.  However, after reading this blog, I believe I need to read more into the bill and hear from both sides of the argument.  

The Decision

In early 2009, President Barack Obama, in efforts to stimulate the economy and prevent major budget cuts and/or tax increases, spent almost $1 trillion and sent a large amount of the federal money to state governments.  However, Texas had an upper hand to other states.  The Texas Legislature, with a two-thirds vote, could tap into a multibillion-dollar rainy day fund.  

Due to conflicting ideas, the dispute between U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, and Gov. Rick Perry began, regarding the appropriate way to spend the money.  With the stimulus money available, the Texas Legislature, prepared to reduce education spending to balance the budget, was able to maintain and increase the education budget.  In addition, Perry feels the government should not attach strings to money it send to states that require the state to increase taxes or change its funding priorities.  Doggett had a different idea, he planned on increasing overall education spending by $3.25 billion, although not required by law, which would need the Legislature to tap the rainy day fund.  

In response to Doggett, John O’Brian, executive director of the Legislative Budget Board, informed legislators of two things: first, without a tax structure able to maintain that level of spending, it was not fiscally sound budget policy to use one-time federal funds to increase the base budget, and two, Doggett’s plan would create a structural deficit that would soon require tax increases and/or major budget cuts. 

The Legislature ended up passing a budget that did not contain cuts, raise taxes, or tap the rainy day fund.  Soon after, in summer of 2010, Congress passed another funding bill dedicated for education.  In an attempt to ensure that additional money would increase education spending instead of make up for shortfall; Doggett attached an amendment to the bill.  The amendment denied Texas its $821 million portion of the funds unless the governor assured the Department of Education Texas would continue with a level of spending equivalent to the current spending for three years. 

Furthermore, Texas spent the 2009 stimulus money in a responsible way, just like the other states.   Texas put the money to make up for the reduction of tax revenue caused by the recession.  If Texas had gone with Doggett’s plan, there would be a $3.25 billion less in the fund and the state deficit would be an additional $3.25 billion.   Although Dogget’s plan is wrong, he continues to repeal his amendment and release the money to Texas.

In the end, the outcome of the matter will be in one of three ways: Congress may repeal the restriction, the Texas Legislators may pass a new budget that gives Doggett what he wants, or Texas will not receive the $831 million that it should get.  Whether the state tax dollars should be spent on education, health care, prisons or any funds is a state decision and Doggett is wrong for trying to force Texas to spend down its reserves, Texas should have the final decision.