Blog stage 7- blood testing justification

There is a bill in some Texas counties that allows trained officers to draw blood if there is suspicion of drunk driving. Some of the counties have it on "no refusal" times, usually during holidays, some on on all weekends, and others year-round. First, if a person refuses a breathalyzer, which many lawyers recommend, the police officer has the right to perform a forced blood drawing. If this is the case, the officer must first obtain a search warrant by a waiting judge, and then transport the suspect to a heath department, a hospital, or a "clean room" in the police station. Depending where they are transported to, either a nurse or a trained officer will perform the test. I want to start by addressing the breathalyzer. Any lawyer will tell you to refuse one because 1) they are inaccurate and 2) if the person passed the tests (walk the line, touch your nose, and so on) the lack of breathalyzer makes it easier to over-turn the DWI. Now, an officer offers you a breathalyzer, and you refuse, knowing it is in your best interest. What they did not mention, however, is if you refuse, you automatically set yourself up for a blood test. A call is made to a waiting judge, the search warrant is issued, and, before you know it, you are being approached with a man/woman with a needle. Again, depending on the county this can happen only on holidays, on weekends, or year-round. Now, this is bogus. It goes against many rights. To have something forcefully entered into your veins against your consent just because you refused a breathalyzer goes against so many personal rights. To me, it is a set up. Take the breathalyzer, and you are most likely going to get a reading that will put you in a "guilty" position and left facing DWI charges. Refuse the breathalyzer (thinking the loss of the licence is better than the DWI), you set yourself up for a forced blood test. The blood tests have given a 100% DWI conviction rate. This takes rights away. Yes, drunk drivers are deadly and should be taken off the road, but not in a way that also takes our constitutional rights away- a fair trial. This is only part of my concern. Ok, they say the officers are trained, but it takes many practices before a person is able to "stick" successfully. Not to mention, that if the person is drunk, they are most likely dehydrated, making it even harder to get a successful "stick". All- in-all, this bill wories me. I understand the government wanting to keep its citizens safe, but to what extent is it willing to go to accomplish this? Apparently, they dont mind bending their OWN rules and regulations to do so.

Stage 6- critique on classmate's blog

My fellow classmate Whitney chose to do her commentary on the issue of tax dollars paying for abortions. First of all, I do like the fact that she is for woman's choice- not pro abortion or against abortion, but, instead, realizing it is for the woman (and some input of the "father") to decide if the decision of the abortion is the correct one in each individual circumstance. She goes on to say that she would not choose to have one, and I think this can create a bias when deciding on the issue of taxes funding abortions. Of course, one would not support "hard earned tax dollars" going to something that he/she does not believe in. But the fact remains, it is still a medical procedure that many cannot afford. She says she thinks that the money should go to more deserving things such as police protection, streets, and public health. I feel like abortion is a deserving issue because it is an issue of public health. In many cases of abortion, the woman chose to have it because she knew and realized there is no possible way (emotionally, financially, physically, maturity, etc.) to take care of a baby. Many say these reasons are selfish and the mother does not take into consideration the baby's feelings and personal choice. But I feel like the opposite: Choosing to have a baby because they cannot admit that they are just not ready is the real selfishness. Why bring something so innocent and pure into a world where there is not proper care available? This brings me back to the issue of tax dollars. If a woman is to rely on public health care for the baby's care this can become way more expensive than the initial abortion. In other words, if a woman chose to have a baby because there was no way to pay for an abortion, i.e. contracts not being passed for tax dollars to help pay for abortions, than the amount of money invested in her, her pregnancy, and after the child is born increases greatly. I think by passing theses contracts, it gives a woman even more personal choice. Yes, it is a woman's choice completely to have an abortion or not; the government should have no part in controlling that choice. Yet, when things aren't passed to help aid women, isn't this a form of indirect control?

blog stage 5-- Capital Punishment: Is it enough?

There are so many different things to discuss when it comes to politics, so I chose to stick with the theme of my last blog, and that is capital punishment. In Texas, the only way someone can be sentenced to death is if they commit a capital murder by committing a capital offense. In other words, the person has to knowingly commit murder or knowingly cause a death under special circumstances. In most cases, I do believe an "eye for an eye" approach to such things because I put myself in the victim's family's position. Imagine knowing the person who raped and murdered your child. I would not hesitate to say I would want the SOB dead. What issue of capital punishment, in my eyes, is more about the contradiction of it. How can such a gruesome of a crime be repaid by simply taking a shot, falling asleep, and never waking up? It doesn't seem like a fair trade to the family; knowing their family member suffered so much right before his/her death, and then watching the killer fall asleep peacefully. It sounds harsh, but I think the punishment should at least compare to the harshness of the crime. Also, the length of the appeals process gives ample time for the person to "come to peace with what he/she did". As a Christian, this means you can still go to Heaven, and many times this is what these pathetic people are doing while waiting for their death. This is a selfish act, and I think 9 times out of 10 it has more to do with looking repentful for the appeals court. Now don't get me wrong, I think anything that can help people who have committed crimes get out of that "crime is a way of life" mindset and better their surrounding when they are released should be supported, and this includes religion. What I do not agree with, however, is that someone on death row clings to this because they are on death row.
So all-in-all, I think there could be a better way to approach capital punishment cases. I am not saying the killer should be tortured to death, but at least have a more comparable death to that of which he/she caused.