If Budget Cuts Ax AP Courses, Will It Be That Bad???

In an editorial on statesman.com titled "Spare Advance Placement courses" the author wants to make the point that AP or Advance Placement classes are a very important, and much needed part of high school that is very benefiting to many students.  The author points out that many budget cuts are going to be made, and doesn't want Advance Placement courses to fall into that group of cuts.  They also made the point to state that in the American-Statesman it was reported that "42,000 Texas high school students earned college credits utilizing the Advanced Placement program last year.", and then moved on to state that those students that took AP courses are three times more likely to graduate college in four years, and earn their degrees quicker than those that don't.

Now, these are all very good points, but cuts do have to be made.  Dual credit courses, which are very very similar to AP courses are another option.  If AP courses do need to be cut, students can get the same benefits from dual credit, which have even taken the place of some of the AP courses at some of the high schools already.  They benefit just as much as the AP courses, and in by opinion they are better.  In high school I took both AP and dual credit courses, and the dual credit much better prepared me for college, while giving me that high school and college credit.  In the AP classes, you do all that hard work, and at the end of the year you take one test that decides if you get that college credit, regardless of whether you did college worthy work all year or not. 

Yes, AP classes are good, and yes they have helped many students advance their education, but if cuts are made to them, it could be a lot, or could be very few.  Either way, it is not the end of the world.  Adjustments can be made, and there are other options to be had.

Government: Too Involved in Abortion

In an article on statesman.com, "Senate committee moves sonogram bill on, with amendments", it is reported that a new bill was amended by the Senate in reference to abortions.  Sen. Dan Patrick proposed this anti-abortion bill that originally required women seeking an abortion (except in special cases such as rape) to receive a sonogram.  Physicians were required to show the sonogram to the woman seeking the abortion, along with the fetal heartbeat, and a description of the fetus.

As I stated before, the bill was amended, but with some adjustments.  The physicians must offer the sonogram image, fetal heartbeat, and a description, but the patient can refuse this.  The only part that will be absolutely required is the fetal description.

The goal of this bill, I'm sure, is to reduce the abortion rates, but it just cruel.  If a woman is seeking an abortion, she has no doubt gone back and forth with the issue, and subjecting them to a sonogram would be inflicting unnecessary pain on someone who is already in turmoil about the issue.  Something to think about: If you have a pregnant fourteen year old daughter and abortion is the route you take, you don't want to show a child an image of her unborn to add to the guilt she probably already feels.

This is an issue that should be left to those involved, and the government shouldn't tangle itself within it.  Every situation is different, and they shouldn't make a hard decision even harder.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/senate-committee-moves-sonogram-bill-on-with-amendments-1244357.html