"Labor" Laws in Travis County

Some Texas women think it's okay to induce labor before full term, and some of their doctors disagree. Seton Hospitals of Austin declared it risky and unsafe to perform early inductions (delivery before 39 weeks) and stopped the practice some 4 years ago. Since then, Seton has lost many pregnant women (and millions of dollars, concurrently) to other hospitals that perform early deliveries. Now, Seton is hoping that state legislatures pass a measure to award incentives to hospitals that adhere more closely to Mother Nature's law. While most women would argue that the state doesn't belong in the delivery room, and I, for the most part, agree, the argument here is why would women want to risk the safety of their babies? And why should the state have to get involved when medical experts can prove the benefits of carrying to term in uncomplicated pregnancies?

I know, I am a man. And honestly, I don't even think I have much right saying what is and what isn't considered fair relating to women's privacy rights. But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. To be a bit more informed in my opinion, I Googled "How early is too early to induce labor?" and "Why do women induce labor/plan cesarean delivery?" The answers ranged anywhere from "Doctor scheduled it around his vacation or other planned deliveries" to "I'm scared it's gunna get too big and hurt, or rip me in two!" Aside from the few who said they were not fit to deliver naturally, answers to my question seemed kind of selfish or ignorant.

I myself was born at Seton, 29 years ago, through a planned cesarean delivery at 38 weeks. My mother had complications with my oldest brother, and had lost my baby brother Davy to suffocation due to an entangled umbilical cord, so she did not wish to risk another natural birth. In uncomplicated cases however, it proves beneficial to the development of the unborn child to carry it full term.

So to the women who wish to induce to ease personal discomfort or simply to fit their schedule...I just don't understand why.

I assume that women don't want the state telling them what's best for their body's. I would also assume women consider what they do with their babies a private and closed-to-discussion matter. The issue of abortion comes to mind. It is a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. That is understandable, and I would (were I a woman) rally the troops against any politician who tried to tell me otherwise. Without being graphic, that baby is no more. Sadly, for whatever reasons, it never happened. That baby doesn't need protection from the law, it needs protection from a life of being a mistake. While the laws are in place to help regulate the latest an abortion can take place, they are there mostly for the protection of the woman. That said, it makes total sense that if a baby is to be born, some wiser, more knowledgeable entity needs to be there to tell a woman what is the safest route to a healthy pregnancy.

I think if people don't want government to be involved in such decisions, then people need to start making better choices. The facts presented by the hospital's findings (millions of dollars in reduced post-natal and trauma care and reduced percentages of newborn sickness by the week) should be enough to deter women from supporting hospitals that allow doctors to schedule births like they were oil changes. But sadly, it isn't. People always have the right to govern what happens to their person, even if it may be a costly mistake.

I applaud Seton, and St. David for making a risky business move themselves. Companies doing the right thing, to the tune of trying to save individual's precious money and quite possibly lives, should probably be rewarded. But where should these rewards come from? If a law is passed to offer these incentives, are my tax dollars yet again going to support a cause I may believe in but don't wish to pay for? I'm sorry. I just never thought of hospitals as a struggling industry. If government awarded subsidies to hospitals for doing the public a service, are they then allowed to overstep their boundaries and micromanage labors from above?

These issues are kinda scary to me. A money machine tries to do something ethical, that could very well lose itself dollars, and they lose more business because the people want what the people want. It'll be the day that something awful (and likely preventable) happens to a baby during a voluntary early induction that the same mother who supports convenience over safety wishes to sue the hospital for damages. In that case, she will come crying to the justice system to take her defense and make right (financially, anyway) her and the doctor's wrong. Then you have unhappy baby, unhappy mommy, unhappy doctors, unhappy hospital. Were I a lawmaker right now, I'd figure out a way to keep all hospitals doing the right thing, and all women trying to follow suit.

If widely available education and the admonishing of professional medical associations against unnecessary induced labor doesn't help these women chose wisely, what will? An Early Birth Tax? I'm not opposed.

Supporting the Whistle Blower

In Mary Shaw's "Smirking Chimp" submission Tuesday, July 27th titled "With Wikileaks, they want to shoot the messenger", she states that the recently leaked military information was not so secret anyway, and that Obama needs to use this opportunity to keep his promise of a more transparent government. She backs these claims with a link to an NBC News investigative report, that finds no real smoking gun or threat to our national security or the safety of our troops within the leaked documents. She also adds a summarized excerpt from the UK's The Guardian of the details revealed within the infamous leak. In contrast, she does add that U.S. National Security Advisor General James Jones released a public statement claiming the dangers of the now public information on the 6 year war in Afghanistan.

Her audience is easily the American citizenry as a whole, yet she rallies more towards those Democrats who believe in Obama (and possibly even voted for him) but have yet to be satisfied with his performance. As this is her personal stance, she finishes that hiding the truth about war's costs and casualties will not undo the damage we've caused overseas.

I do believe her opinions to be valid, quite simple, and to the point. She states her knowledge easily, and backs up her facts with several bona fide links. She even goes as far as posting the link to the White House's web page which contains a very official and convincing-looking argument against the rest of her own post. This only further shows the reader that she is convinced that the information "leak" was hardly blowing the cover off of unknown troubles overseas. She helps to convince us that, although war is ugly and the numbers and individual failed attacks are hard to hear, this is just the facts; "everyday war stuff" that, if we are expected to support and fund, we have the right to hear about. Kind of like a "Okay, Mr. President: We know more than we wanted to know...Now how the heck are you gunna fix it?"

She brings up another good point about how governing bodies need to think before they speak as well, especially when making official statements that could scare the general public. We hear "security breach" or "classified info leak" and we already start to think the worst. It doesn't help that the U.S. Advisor of National Security's response to it is "Oh, Boy. This could be bad!" This appears, as in the Shirley Sherrod case she refers to, to be a government "finger pointing" type of tactic to remove negative attention from itself in the light of a public failure. A knee-jerk reaction to a highly publicized issue indeed. Their hope, I think me and Mary Shaw both feel, is to pretend like they're taking action against the wrong-doer (Sherrod or the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange) in an attempt to placate the American people's feelings about who is causing the real injustice.

Meanwhile, we can only hope, they are rushing to take the proper steps toward cleaning their now-public dirty laundry, and not just pushing it under the bed.

Immigration Law "Reform"?

The Editorial Board for the Austin American Statesman laid out a good point in its July 15th article, "We Should Make a Federal Case Over Immigration." I have to say, I learned a lot from the opinions expressed herein, and couldn't agree more. Essentially, they are speaking to all Americans in the piece, but border states that feel the effects of illegal immigrants are especially targeted. The AAS Board states that our (America's) general feeling of Obama's opposition to Arizona's self-mandated law is a negative one. Obama wants to see to it that there is a universal, fair, and just way to collect from and penalize immigrants to the US; a heavy issue already, recently complicated by Arizona's new law to check suspicious character's "papers". Meanwhile, Americans favor by a 17 point margin leaving the matter to the individual state.

If Arizona gets to make it's own laws about how to deal with illegal-looking characters, things can and will easily get out of hand. Brownish, yellowish, reddish, or funny-sounding people the states over would almost assuredly be unfairly profiled, and that is exactly what the Obama administration is trying to avoid. Imagine every border town and state in a state of siege. It can not likely be easy to identify each of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living free in the US already, and it will not get any easier if they are sent into further hiding their identity, forging papers, or worse, creating strongly knit gangs (or modern day factions).

We have to face it, people who face discrimination have tendencies to revolt. I'm not saying Mexicans and Haitians and Canadians all form gangs, but they do usually keep close packs once they arrive, and we need to recognize them as a threat if they are to be rounded up and mistreated by some zealous state troopers on the border (and you know there's no shortage of those).

I was most pleased to hear that Obama has indeed identified the problem that currently faces Americans due to declining federal interest and funds at the nation's borders. In all honesty, I believe that this should be the land of the free, but Nothing here comes free to Americans, so why should it come free to foreigners? I have to admit, in my 10 plus years as a server/bartender/valet, you name it in the hospitality industry, I have befriended, met or known of 100s of illegals, usually hard-working, and just lucky to be out of dreary Mexico border towns. They typically reside in cramped apartments for years, and send much needed money back home as they can. Its actually heart-warming, a single, displaced man risking All just to provide for a family he cannot see, and may honestly never see again unless they make the cross too.

That said, before 2008, I never thought about how many resources they abuse, and jobs they take from honest Americans. If there was an abundance in jobs needing workers here, I would say "Welcome, Todos!" But it's just not the case anymore, and so I can see why states are feeling the need to create there own means of protecting their jobs, funds, educational institutions, and yes, even our national language.

I am a Mexican American. As of 3 generations ago, I couldn't call myself American. I love my heritage, and enjoy studying my language (I was not raised to speak Spanish). However, I believe my predecessors had to do it the hard, or "honest" way. Marrying in, becoming citizens, paying taxes, then working hard and contributing to our great nation's diversity. I wish, especially considering how troubled Mexico has become in recent drug-war-ridden years, that each and every immigrant to the states could have an opportunity to make it here, and prosper as the Rodriguez' and Gonzalez' have. But, I think they need to wait it line, pay the toll, and then do it right, especially if they don't wish to be profiled everywhere they go.

It doesn't seem fair for refugees to be constantly on the run and afraid of their new governmental system; but it is only fair that they adhere to all of America's rules when they arrive. We will be a stronger integrated nation of immigrants if the federal courts rule on stricter border control and standardized means for citizenship.

The 100K waiter? In what world?

So, BP saved the Gulf, and Obama swept up Wall Street this week. And all I'm concerned with is server wages? Not really. I love the Gulf of Mexico; I grew up vacationing on Galveston Island. But I am still trying to grasp why I should care about Big Finance when the last thing I invested in was an $80 pair of shoes (that I saved up for over a year to buy). Lemme tell ya, the only thing poorer than a service industry worker is an out of work one. So it struck me as important to lend proof that old, rich, white America is out of touch with its struggling youth.

When Minnesota GOP* hopeful Tom Emmer said in a press meeting last week that "some (servers are) earning over $100,000 a year," you can bet your crappy tips that the servers came out in droves, and they weren't smiling. I served and bar tended in San Antonio and Austin for about 6 years, 3 of those years as a middle manager, and probably just cracked that figure.

Now, I tried to study up and become a "wages and taxation" buff by midnite tonight, but nothing doing. Instead, I will learn through continued reading of the subject at hand. And, as are so popularly played upon in forums, posting questions to you, the readers, and welcoming back any and all responses via comments. I am directly affected (or at least I will be once I regain employment) by our state's rate of pay for tip-based positions; Are you?

*Learn Politics: What Does "GOP" Stand For?

Some Questions For Discussion:

ARE YOU FOR RAISING ALLOWANCES FOR PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IS HIGHLY SENSITIVE TO ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, AND NOT STEADILY GUARANTEED?

HOW DO WE KEEP SERVERS HEALTHY, HAPPY, AND MEDICATED IF THEY DON'T RECEIVE BENEFITS AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT?

WILL THE NEW HEALTH CARE BILL AND MANDATORY REGULATIONS BURDEN OR SAVE PART TIME SERVERS?

IS IT UNFAIR TO RESTAURANT OWNERS/MANAGERS THAT THEY ARE MAKING MORE HOURLY, AND THEREFOR PAYING OUT MORE TAXES THAN SERVERS?

FINALLY, TOM EMMER SEEMS OUT OF TOUCH, SURE, BUT DIDN'T HE JUST KIND OF MISSPEAK? I MEAN, YES, HIS HEAD IS A BIT UP HIS REPUBLICAN ASS, BUT AREN'T WE ALL A LITTLE OUT OF TOUCH ON POLICIES THAT DON'T EFFECT US?

I actually thought it was respectable that he retracted his faulty statement, flipped his opinion, and went to work at a restaurant for a day when he was confronted by angry servers. Sure, you could look at it as a mere attempt to save his ass, but it's nice to know that he listened to the people. And that a couple of hard-working, forgotten servers made a difference. I know I would never readily part with 2010 pennies if it wasn't going to feed me or my dogs.

"Change is good" or "Not as Stubborn as I Sound"

I realized 3 things after I first blogged:

1. That I meant to call my Blog Links "Blogs of Interest" and not "Favorite Blogs," because in all honesty, I don't know enough of their content to side with them wholeheartedly (I know, just a pseudonym for my political views all together). I only picked them because I've run across them or heard of them before. My News Sources on the other hand are my genuine sources of current events. I think Reuters tops them for speed, clarity, and unbiased reporting. Just my opinion.

2. That I probably sound a lot dumber and more bull-headed than I am, as if "I just don't care what happens to us." Believe me, I was offended by how "ignorant" the supplementary reading says we are, I just don't yet have the answers as to who I should support and why. I am always up for enlightenment.

3. That I didn't include insight as to why I'm taking the class, aside from it being a necessity. I do love to learn about things around me, and be better prepared for whatever obstacle may come my way. But some things are far more interesting when observed from afar. To me, politics has always fascinated me, but to such a soap-operaesque point, that I always feel it is unnecessarily dramatic, and I am out of the loop because I haven't been following it from the beginning. Kinda like I came into a losing baseball game too late, and now I feel I could never contribute enough to make a difference and bring my team out from behind in the last inning.

I know that sounds dismal, but I also know I can't be alone in this perspective. I bet several "younger" folks just don't like to get involved because they fear they can't change things, not because they don't want to. So, during this shortest of semesters, I would hope to learn a new way of thinking that my opinion does matter, and that I can make a difference. And maybe have a little more faith that somebody up there, in their lofty position of power is doing something right.

A bit about me, and my UNpolitical ideaologies

So, I bombed the pretests gracefully, not much more than most of you guys, I'm sure.

58% correct on the Civics quiz. 60% or so on the Current Events. And I'm ashamed of what I made on the Political Typology poll. Just Kidding. But I was very surprised at some of my answers when questioned on some tougher topics. It's not like I never think about these things, but I have been able to live my life thus far, for 29 happy (if happily ignorant) years, without displaying or practicing any political views of my own, one way or the other.

So, yes, the Typology poll says I lean heavily on the Liberal side. But, I have never voted, and am only registered because I had to to renew my license a while back. While I'm not necessarily proud of this, I also have no reason to be ashamed. I always said that I would vote when both sides decided to drop their holier-than-thou charades, leave behind the finger pointing, and start to discuss what our faults as a whole have been; possibly even (gasp!) work together to see what Really does work best and in our best interests. Does this mean I think that we can achieve "universal ideals" or world peace? It'd be nice, but I'm not counting on seeing it in my lifetime.

I just hope to see the day when the arguments and issues up for debate, or bills or propositions trying to be passed have Anything to do with me, and I hear a valid argument in the favor of my opinion. If I politician were to speak directly to me, I would be there to listen, and would show my support by raising my voice and voting.

Now that I've written it down, maybe I do regret not voting in 2000 and 2004. I know that we are given a great opportunity to be an important asset to our own government, something that not all countries can say. But, at the same time, I feel like the powers that be will always have a larger voice than we do. And after reading the Declaration of Independence, top to bottom for the first time (I can't even tell you if they made us do that in middle school or not), I feel like some of our liberties are increasingly at risk, and that even today, especially today, we would not have the power to overthrow our government if we felt them to be unjust or uncivil.