Health or Shame?

                         Rachel Farris recently posted a commentary in her blog 'Mean Rachel' entitled The Texas Shame Act. In this article, she responds to the recent enforcement of a law popularly called the Texas sonogram law. This controversial law requires physicians to provide a sonogram before performing an abortion. A woman seeking an abortion can choose whether to view the sonogram images and whether to hear the fetal heartbeat. She also is required to hear the medical explanation of the sonogram at least 24 hours before the procedure. Her commentary is most likely written towards other Democrats, and women who disagree with the sonogram law. For a law that has the potential to affect such a wide audience (any woman who MAY become pregnant at some point), one needs little more credibility than being a woman to have a strongly opinionated voice on this matter. Farris argues that this law serves no medical purpose, and that the only purpose it serves is to shame and humiliate women who have made a very difficult decision to have an abortion. She additionally comments on the recent 'Doonesbury' comic strip that was recently published in response to the Texas sonogram law. She disagrees with the decision of numerous newspapers to either display the comic strip in the Opinions section, or to exclude the strip all together. Farris states that if the law is "truly a plight to keep women safe, then why can't I read about it while I gulp down OJ and Cheerios?" This is great use of logic on her part; it is clear that women's health is indeed NOT the aim of this law. She deploys further evidence of the unjustifiable nature of the removal of the comic strip by comparing it to another popular comic strip 'Ziggy'. This strip also takes aim merely at women's health, but yet somehow escapes ridicule and controversy. Could this be because the Texas sonogram law is in fact not aimed at women's health whatsoever? Farris' point exactly. 

Technology Integrated in Education

                As expected for many years now, education is making a giant shift. The days of cracking open a textbook are coming to an end sooner than we know it. The introduction of iPads and school-issued laptops in K-12 education was discussed  in the Austin American Statesman in an article titled "Electronic instructions calls for careful legislative study". According to this article, "in January, ninth-graders in both Round Rock high schools will be issued laptop computers. In Eanes, the high school students just received iPads bought with bond money. One class of third-graders at Leander’s River Ridge Elementary is now using iPads in replace of textbooks." There are many reasons for this technological shift. The typical view among educators is that technology can be used effectively to improve instruction by providing instructional variety, by helping to make abstract concepts concrete with the use of new programs, and by stimulating interest among students. Additionally, electronic texts are easier to update, and since today’s students grow up consuming information on computers and hand-held electronic devices, the educational information will be better, and more easily received. However, somebody is going to have to fund all of this new technology. Besides the devices themselves and the costs associated with rewiring buildings to meet increased demand for Internet connections, teachers have to be trained in using electronic learning effectively. School districts have used a variety of techniques including parent donations, using bond money, and even dipping into savings. In the next session, legislators should expect school districts to seek additional state help to fund the transition from hard-copy textbooks to electronic learning devices. Texas school finance will be front and center when the civil trial over the current law opens in Austin this month. Taking a look at the implications of the transition toward electronic learning would be a wise investment of time when the session opens in January.