Why federal need to keep Obama administration to transgender's right

Last May, the Obama administration directed schools across the country to allow transgender students to use bathrooms, locker rooms and other facilities that match their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth. However, the Trump administration decided to roll back this protection for transgender students this year. I don’t think it is a good decision even though a lot of people thought the administration of Obama overreach their federal power, and in turn threatened  non-transgender student’s right and privacy. In my opinion, this order from administration of Obama is just as a signal showing federal government’s attitude, which implies that federal is considering and protecting their rights. In truth, regardless of the administration, it is very likely that not every transgender student uses the bathroom of their identification because of embarrassment. Imagine it, when you are in a school restroom, and someone who identifies themselves as female, but is actually biologically male, walks into the female's restroom, how would you feel at first sight? I believe most people will be shocked at the first moment, and then we start to think about the reason like transgender or satyr. But before we could think of reason, that transgender student may have already see our fear, worry ,and puzzle. Both of us will have an uncomfortable moment, and this form of emotional abuse is practically unavoidable. Therefore, I believe the transgender students aren’t willing to the facilities that match their gender identity if they don’t look like their identity gender yet, even though they can go. So I support the Obama’s administration just because it works as a landmark for transgender's right, not because I welcome someone looking of opposite gender walking into my bathroom.  

Respond to calssmate

I am surprised when I saw you choosing the same topic as me and took an opposite stand. I can understand your support for Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood still offers a lot of healthcare service beside abortion service. You also mention about your identification as an anti-abortionist, and so am I. My point is, why is Planned Parenthood the one being funded? There are a lot of different clinics that can also offer woman health care services, which qualifies for Medicaid but does not offer abortion service. I would like the Federal Government to relocate the funding from the Planned Parenthood to these clinical facilities. With these funding, I believe these facilities can also expand their clinic to the rural area and eventually replace Planned Parenthood.

Federal government should defund Planned Parenthood which offers abortion service.

    Trump said Planned Parenthood can keep federal funds if it stops offering abortions, and it sounds reasonable to me. The first reason I support his idea is because I believe this is a violation of federal laws when a facility that offers abortion service takes government funds. The Hyde Amendment has blocked federal Medicaid funding for abortion services except when continuing the pregnancy will endanger the woman’s life, or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest. Even though the Planned Parenthood claims they use those federal funding on “non-abortion medical services”, but it just means that they use it on abortion service indirectly instead to me. There is always an unclear border between services because of the overlapping part such as new facility, new employee, tools, etc. that can share between non-abortion and abortion services. The Planned Parenthood also gets funding from the federal government to relieve their non-abortion service expense, thus they can use more their own money on abortion service. In my opinion, although they are not obviously violating the law, but they have used a loophole and this should be illegal.

    My second point is that I believe the decision of abortion should be made based on more careful considerations.A convenient and easy access to abortion does not imply freedom of women; this right should be built under the conditions of not abusing someone else. Abortion does not only involve the woman but also a future life. I believe the convenient access will mask people’s awareness about how a serious issue it is because they don’t need to pay much on this decision making. If abortion service is an easy service, the young people would never learn how to take the responsibility to themselves, their lover, and their dying kid. The federal government shouldn’t play the role in helping encourage abortion. People should be more careful and take responsibility for their own body while practicing unsafe sexual behavior. It is their choice, and civilians shouldn’t have to pay for their carelessness. Of course, the exceptions listed in the amendment is an entirely different scenario, and I would like to exclude them from my discussion. 

I really like this article because it is a very persuasive article that analyzes the steps we can take to solve the worker's dislocation and relocation issues, rather than just a simple discharge of NAFTA. The potential audience is a group of rational individuals who are disappointed about our current economic stress, career market, increasing living expense, and would like the government to implement something good, instead of constantly focusing on the bad ones. The audience should be calm, not radical and lash their frustration and anger to only one devilish thing. He is neutral because he didn’t focus on how bad NAFTA is, or how much profit NAFTA brought us. The dislocation is not only caused by a Trade Agreement. The main cause is the competitive economic environment, globalization, and automation. The author, Karen A. Tramontano is chief executive officer of Blue Star Strategies, LLC and president of the Global Fairness Initiative. Blue Star Strategies is an organization that offers advice service, such as political intelligence and risk assessments, and promotes trade and economic integration to corporations and government. It is a very credible background and it makes sense that he can list so many practiced and feasible suggestions to solve the trade and unemployed problems. I strongly agree with ideas like “Rejecting trade agreements outright will not end global competition for U.S. workers who will continue to confront corporate relocation and dislocation”, because the main cause is still there, even if you cut the fire, the fuse remains and will most likely lead to another conflagration. 

      While I was searching for a good commentary to do this assignment from the list resources, a lot of articles about our new president’s words, “Media are people’s enemy”, caught my attention. Since Trump won the election, there has been a lot of controversial discussions arise around him, so I thought this would be a good topic for this assignment. After I started to review some articles discussing Trump’s attitude toward the media, the title “Trump Knows How to Make Enemies, Not Deals” drew my attention. This is exactly what I thought after I heard about him on the news. The author’s intended audience is most likely someone like me, trying to be neutral, but still taking on the side of issue leaning in favor of Trump’s opponent. The fact that she didn’t criticize the policy he makes, and only commented on the way he delivered to the public gave me the sense of neutrality. However, she also used strong words such as” demonize “that gave me the feeling that she is not really neutral. The author, Nancy, holds a bachelor’s degree in Psychology/Social Studies/Secondary Education and a master’s degree in Theology/Marriage and Family Therapy and provided counseling and family therapy for youth who were chemically dependent, runaways, throwaways and in other high-risk situations for over 14 years. I believe her credibility from a social worker’s viewpoint, which is directly connected to society. I truly agree with Nancy’s point of view. I think some of the issues Trump pointed out really needs to be fixed in a harsh way, but he could have used a totally different way to say the words that would make him be more pleasant to other people, but he always does it via the Trump-style.

      I also agree with the Eastern metaphor she used, yang and yin. It really made sense to me. I came from Taiwan, and we have subtle political issues with China government. As I heard Trump made a phone call to China, I really want him to retain his radical attitude toward China, but the result turned out to be him drawing back a little bit. Her explanation clarified my question.

Our new secretary of HHS

     While I was skimming the news title, the news about our new secretary of health and human services decision attracted my attention.  According to ThinkProgress, the Senate has approved the nomination of Representative Tom Price to be the secretary of health and human services (HHS), and is expecting him to implement the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act. However, there are doubts about Price’s investments, insider trading, and possibly conflicts of interest.

     Health insurance is important to our daily living. Everyone has a chance to be sick and may need to seek help from it. Since the beginning of Obamacare, a lot of debates arise around it, and it doesn’t matter if you like it or not, you can see its effects showing up on your tax form in recent years, so I believe the confirmation of new secretary of HHS is important to our future health program ,service, and coverage. That said, the suspicious conflicts of interest could also influence our insurance market.

Hello!

Hello, everyone.