Commentary on an article from the Texas Observer

The Texas Observer's article Climate Change Conference: Adaption Crucial for Central Texas is a commentary well-written and somewhat terrifying.  The claim of the article is that Texas's odd climate patterns topped with the stark reality of Global Warming could seriously damage the Texas frontier, as well as the people that inhabit it.  Because the East sides' population of mostly elder, poorer people, a lot of the environmentally-friendly structures that are in Central Texas are in that area, a reaction to the terribly hot summer of 2011.  The article states that "'green' buildings that often have features that can reduce exposure to heat, flooding and other extreme weather conditions—(are) clustered west of I-35".  However, according to the article such structures need to be everywhere-not just in the places where the damage has already been done.
The author, Priscila Mosqueda, has credibility because she has lived in Texas for some time now (she just recently graduated from the University of Texas).  The attended audience for the article are people living in Texas and concerned about the ever-changing weather conditions in this state and its impact on their lives.  The evidence the author uses to support her argument that Climate Adaption is crucial for Central Texas is in her statement about climate change, which "means longer and more frequent droughts; more numerous and severe wildfires due to higher temperatures; and rainfall that could come less frequently but with more intensity, worsening Central Texas’ status as the flash flood capital of the nation and producing more fatalities and property damage".  The logic of her argument is clear-  if we don't take into consideration the affect Greenhouse Gases has had on this earth, the less likely we as Texans will be prepared for future impending natural disasters. 

Critique on an editorial from the Austin Chronicle

I recently found an article on The Austin Chronicle website entitled Abortion Rights Lawsuit Filed Against State of Texas.  The article, written by Jordan Smith on October 4th, 2013, discusses HB (House Bill) 2 and its effect on Amy Hagstrom Miller's Whole Woman's Health and Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas.  Though this article is fairly unbiased, the audience it is probably most intended for are the people who are against HB 2 and all of its provisions.  Smith states in his article that "HB 2 contained four provisions that create new and sweeping restrictions to abortion access" and "that the state has not allowed doctors trying to comply with the admitting privileges portion of the law enough time to do so."  The author's credibility in this subject is unknown to the reader at first glance of the article.  There is no "About the Author", not even a distinction if Jordan Smith is a woman or man.  However, the author did site very credible sources in her/ his article, such as quoting Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parent­hood Federation of America.

Smith's argument is that the lawsuit filed against Texas when it comes to this abortion debate was bound to happen with the State not giving free clinics enough time to adjust to the new laws and, consequently, the lack of care women would receive in areas such as Fort Worth, Killeen, Waco, McAllen, Harlingen, and Lubbock.  Smith also, however, states that "...hospital admitting-privilege requirements have been enacted, and subsequently blocked by courts, in Mississippi, Alabama, Wisconsin, and North Dakota", as if suggesting that this, too, shall pass, and abortion regulations will someday once again not be overly-strict.  Smith's evidence comes from the people he has quoted in his article (people like Richards) and also the very statements that lie in this lawsuit enacted on behalf of abortion providers against this state.  The logic the author uses here is also sugar-coated with emotion (as most abortion debates are), quoting Richard's statement in the end that "'Texas women deserve bettter'".

I personally am completely against HB 2 and all four of its provisions on abortion in Texas.  I can honestly say it is very hard being a pro-choice young woman born and raised in the state of Texas and seeing (mostly) white older republican males dictating what a Texas woman can and cannot do with her body based on x, y, and z.  While Smith has a point that these propositions could be easily overturned in time, the fact is by then it will already be too late.  What the republicans want in this state (particularly those that are in favor of these new restrictions on abortion) is a lag on the easy access of getting such healthcare for women in this state, since they have not been able to successfully ban abortion completely with the support of the voters.  By the time the new law has been overturned, the damage will already have been done-Planned Parenthood in most parts of this state, having been shut down, will have to start all over.  And that, in my opinion, is a shame.