Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, use this postmarks submission form, or email your letter directly to mail@austinchronicle.com. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Editor,
    In my view, Richard Whittaker’s characterization of the relationship between the board and the superintendent in his article “Communication Breakdown” [News, April 15] is not an appropriate assessment, nor do I believe that the district is anywhere near to being at “war with itself,” as the article’s subcaption indicates.
    The challenges faced by the district are massive and complex. We are in uncharted waters. The choices we have to make are painful and the processes imperfect. I know of no one that wants to reduce staff or make budget cuts that we know will have adverse consequences for our students, staff, and community. But the budget crisis is real and we must deal with it.
    Democracy isn’t pretty. The Austin ISD board is composed of nine individually elected members, with a wide variety of life and work experiences, skill sets and beliefs, as well as differing opinions on the “line” between governance and management.
    So it is natural that there may be some disagreements with the superintendent or among members of the board about how best to address the significant issues faced by the district. Because our meetings are public, those bumpy conversations are out there for all to see. While one might hope that any such disagreements be discussed respectfully in a board meeting or with the superintendent directly, rather than in an inflammatory manner in the media, that is not always the case.
    Yet, even in light of all the concerns described by Mr. Whittaker, and pursuant to policy, a majority of the board, on three separate occasions, on January 24, February 28, and March 28 chose to support the work of the superintendent, the human resources department, and the principals and supervisors throughout the district who had to make the difficult and unpleasant decisions at various steps throughout the reduction in force process.

Dear Editor,
    I appreciated your coverage of the amendments to House Bill 1 in Amy Smith’s article “Brutal Budget Amendments Target Family Planning Funds” [News, April 1]. I am, however, concerned that I haven’t read anything about consequences of these cuts for those most impacted by them: women enrolled in the Medicaid Women’s Health Program. The amendment to HB 1, if carried over into the final budget bill, leaves 41% of women enrolled in the Medicaid Women’s Health Program without a provider. House Bill 419 addresses this large population of women. This bill has received little attention but is already in committee, waiting on a vote. It is critical that Austinites hear about this legislation. It would significantly reduce women’s access to medical information and resources.
    HB 419 would automatically enroll women who are receiving Medicaid and have just given birth into a pilot program that provides women’s health services, with limitations. The bill requires that health care providers promote abstinence-only family planning methods to mothers who are not married and prohibits providers from offering emergency contraception options or referring women to abortion providers. It is troublesome that the women enrolled would not be asked whether they wished to participate. Women in Medicaid are, by the nature of their financial need, limited to the options the program provides and do not have the means to choose another health care program.
    It is unethical to take advantage of mothers living in poverty to enact the culture wars of our entire community. If we truly want our legislators to restrict women’s access to medical information and resources, let us consider a bill that would affect Texas women across classes, not simply those without the resources to walk away. We would see a lot more coverage of a bill like that.

Dear Editor,
    Thank you to Richard Whittaker for his saddening but informative April 15 article on the Austin ISD budget cuts and the lack of clear communication from the district regarding them [“Communication Breakdown,” News]. Few in the local media have taken the time to investigate the way the district administration has chosen to manage this difficult period. Another aspect of these cuts that has been largely ignored is the coming reduction in district support staff, specifically, social service support. Along with the hundreds of teachers losing their jobs, a small army of social workers, parent support specialists, school to community liaisons, behavioral specialists, and others are being let go. The students and families who receive the services offered by these employees are often struggling with issues of homelessness, unemployment, mental or emotional health, language barriers, and personal crisis. While the loss of so many teachers will have undeniable effects upon the lives of all students, the children and parents who will no longer have access to mental health resources, housing referrals, Blue Santa, counseling, or support groups are the ones for whom I truly worry. Many of these families are already living on the edge of society. AISD schools may be the only place where some parents can access professionals of this sort. To take away more than half of these positions will have immediate and long-lasting negative consequences in the lives of children. This is a critical time for so many AISD families. Agencies such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, Communities in Schools, the Austin Child Guidance Center, and local Boys and Girls Clubs will no doubt experience the ripple effects of these cuts. I urge all who are angry over the budget cuts to use that energy toward positive ends; while we may not be able to step directly into a classroom, it is still possible to volunteer with one of the above organizations to make a difference in the life of an AISD student.

Dear Editor,
    I never enjoy Maakies when I read it, so I generally ignore it. However, in the April 15 issue, it featured a large picture of a dog's deep-fried face. Once it caught my eye, I felt sick to my stomach and couldn't even continue reading the page.
    Why do you continue to publish Maakies? Is it intended to disgust people?