Mississippi's Only Abortion Clinic Close to being Shut Down

The Mississippi Legislature signed House Bill 1390 into law in April. The law requires all physicians who perform abortions in abortions clinics to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and must be board certified in gynecology or obstetrics. The clinic has been unable to admit patients in hospitals due to hospital administrators hesitation to be titled as abortion advocates. Twelve hospitals near the clinic have denied hospital privileges to women wishing for abortion. The owners of Mississippi's only abortion clinic are going to fight Mississippi's state law in federal court in the near future. Like Diane Derzis, the clinic's president and owner, I hope the federal judge declares Mississippi's law unconstitutional. In July, a federal judge temporarily blocked the law from going into effect to allow the clinic time to comply with the law in order to avoid the state from imposing penalties against the organization. The law's sponsor in Mississippi's House, Rep. Sam Mims, claims the state's measure wasn't created to eliminate abortion, but that's a lie. The lawmakers properly anticipated that hospitals would deny access to women wishing for abortions, therefore eliminating abortion. "A lot of facilities and hospitals, no doubt, don't want to... be labeled as the one facility that's hospitable to providing abortions," said Mississippi State University Professor Martin Wiseman. Mississippi is often considered to be one of the most conservative, religious states in the U.S. The issue of government, mainly state legislatures, being allowed to make abortion unavailable or illegal is a reoccurring issue across America. Americans need to make it clear to the government that we stand for our individual rights, including the right to abortion. 

Gay Marriage: An Inalienable Right

Ballot measures in Maine and Maryland were passed recently making same-sex marriages recognizable under state law. The vote was close in Maryland: 51.9% of voters approved gay marriage rights. Marriage shouldn't be prohibited by government, no matter who the marriage is between. I don't understand how their are opponents to gay marriage rights; Opponents reflect close-minded, selfish thoughts. It shouldn't be up to voters to decide if gays can marry in a society of inalienable rights including the right to marry. The right should already exist in our society. Discussions have taken place around the U.S. to determine the significance of allowing gays to marry. The significance is clear: the government has no right to prevent and not recognize gay marriages. This is one of those social issues prevalent in America that shouldn't be an issue to any Americans.

Rocky Mountain High: Psychoactivity and Economic Growth

Amendment 64 is huge news for pot users. This newly enacted amendment gives 21 year olds the right to possess up to one ounce and grow six plants; however, public consumption is still illegal. There is talk that the Colorado legislature will enact an excise tax of up to %15 on cannabis, pending Colorado residents’ approval. Soon, former "medicinal" dispensaries will become "public" dispensaries where 21 year olds can go to buy cannabis. This method should remind Americans of the support our #1 cash crop (yes, it is indeed cannabis) can bring to struggling state and federal deficits. 

I want to keep the comparing and contrasting of cannabis with alcohol to a minimum, simply because they are two different goods. Alcohol causes around 80,000 deaths per year while cannabis causes 300. Cannabis grows in the ground and can contribute to our economy without interfering with American society, as too commonly seen by alcohol. 

The implications of American voters in Colorado passing Amendment 64 stand alone. Americans are sick and tired of cannabis prohibition, but I'm sure the cops and the DEA feast with the help of their confiscated goods and assets of pot users. Let's look at the Controlled Substances Act of the U.S., specifically Schedule I. Schedule I drugs are highly dangerous, addictive, and have no medicinal benefit. Man, it's ironic that there is a booming medicinal industry in almost half of the U.S. states and two states fully legalized cannabis, but yet our government, the government of modernity and open-mindedness, refuses to recognize cannabis brings good the world, American citizens, and can potentially turn around our economy by itself. 

I have seen with my own two eyes the entire spectrum of pot users. Some use for medicinal reasons, suffering from multiple sclerosis or the hardships of chemotherapy. Others use for recreational purposes. I admit I have no right to get in the way with medicinal cannabis patients, and the government should do the same and leave patients alone. But I take it a step farther. I also admit I have no right to tell recreational pot users whether they can or can't smoke because there has been enough evidence to prove cannabis has a minimal effect on society and the individual, and on the contrary, can bring the American economy to its feet. 

We can't let cartels or criminal organizations control one of the most significant crop markets in America. We need to legalize, regulate, and reform our laws so that all Americans can be positively affected by cannabis legalization.

Death Penalty

All phases of a death penalty case are designed to assure only guilty defendants are convicted. Every phase besides the execution and the penalty phase trial incorporates sub-phase(s) that are put in place to prevent an innocent defendant from being executed. I believe lethal injection is the only method of execution that isn't considered cruel and unusual, although guilty murderers could die from any way possible without many American citizens caring if they die as a result of a cruel and unusual method. Hanging, firing squad, electrocution, and gas aren't guaranteed to result in instant death, which then provokes the idea of cruel and unusual punishment.

The majority of death penalty executions have taken place in Texas. It's difficult to suggest Texas overuses their death penalty statute due to Texas' immense population. Their concealed weapon laws also place them in another category that interferes with the legitimacy of the high murder rate. California has one of the largest state populations in the U.S. with 704 people on death row, but only 13 people have been executed in California. At first glance, northern states currently ban the death penalty more than southern states including Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New York. Males have historically been executed at a higher rate than females. I believe this is simply because there are fewer women murderers, not because women are unfairly able to avoid death penalty sentences.

The Illinois Capital Murder Statute appears to be fair. However, after reviewing the state by state data, Illinois executed 348 individuals preceding 1976 which probably implies innocent defendants have been put to death because of the absence of DNA evidence in those cases. Illinois abandoned their capital murder statute because of several reasons; the main reason is the large number of innocent defendants (20) since 1973 who were found guilty, but then later found to be innocent.

After looking over the data, The Death Penalty Information Center puts forth evidence that shows an anti-death penalty bias. The DPIC shows racial fluctuation amongst victims and defendants. The odds of a death penalty sentence were 97% higher for those whose victim was white than for those whose victim was black. Interracial murders bring forth questions of foul play by the judicial system, but nobody can actually prove that this is indeed racism instead of a higher number of blacks killing whites and therefore, more executions of black defendants. Innocence isn't a reason to ban the death penalty. In any judicial system, no matter the crime, there is an unpredictable percentage of defendants being found guilty on trial, but later being found innocent. Though the DPIC shows 141 exonerations since 1973, there are probably a lot more exonerations for non-capital crimes. Another statistic thrown our way is that California has spent $4 billion on death penalty cases since 1978. This statistic has no weight because of the huge amount of money spent by the government in other trials that aren't capital crimes. Tax dollars have to be spent in some way; I don't mind if $4 billion has been spent on enforcing a reasonable statute (the death penalty) for over 30 years because that simply means the government is doing its job.