Who's choice is it anyway?

An Editorial by Brent Jones in USA Today  talked about who's right is it to view an ultrasound when considering an abortion. In this editorial he stated that  Under laws enacted in Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina, the ultrasound screen must be turned so women can see the image, and the doctor must describe the size of the fetus and any viewable organs or limbs. If a doctor do not comply with the order that was made by the state then they will get fined a large amount of money. Of course they will comply. His argument is saying that it is not anyone's right to make a women get an ultrasound, intended to change her mind not to get an abortion. I can understand his logic in determining that issue. It would only make sense if a person who will like to have an abortion have their decision not mocked but understood. I think he wrote this to the people who may think it is a good idea for a woman to get a trans-vaginal ultrasound to try to change that woman's mind, because they do not agree on abortions. 
         We need to ask our self. Is this OK?  It is the "woman's" right to have that trans-vaginal ultrasound when asking for an abortion. Yeah I know the whole reason is for a woman to reconsider even having an abortion but, usually a woman will not even change her mind. He stated that it is important for the woman herself to agree to have the ultrasound. If a woman is paying for the abortion then it should be up to her to agree on the extra procedure. Just like he said in his editorial, "in a three-year study by social scientists from the University of California-San Francisco, 457 women at abortion clinics across the country were offered an opportunity to view ultrasounds. About 60% chose to do so. Not one changed her mind and decided against an abortion". It just outrageous that people can decide what is best for a women when it comes to an abortion, but don't know what to even do when it comes to cancer. So that being said, making woman go through that procedure is worthless, and so heartless. Getting an abortion is such a stressful and sad thing to do. Just making someone go through that is terrible when they already have to do something in their heart is already terrible. There are different circumstances why a person get an abortion, but just like it is there choice to go through with an abortion, then it should be there choice to get an ultrasound before the procedure. Only to see if it will change that person's mind. It is about control in the United States and they just want to control how many people actually get an abortion. What we need to realize is that even though we may think we can control everything. They will have abortion even if its legal or not. It will just cause more deaths and injury's. Just something to think about. This editor made a great point and I agree with is argument.

Is there something to hide?

This critique of an editorial on USA Today, is about having to disclose donors on Super PAC ads. There seem to be a large amount of money that is donated to help with campaigns. In which, of course, help win elections. This, whole editorial is saying to me is that , if you have enough money you have an edge over everyone else that is running against you. I feel like of course you need money to have a successful campaign. But, I also feel like the other people who may have less amount of money should have a good chance of winning also. I do see the points about the amounts that have been donated to keep an campaign alive as you will see when you read the article, but the whole idea of having every donor on ads saying" I approve this message" is unnecessary. Yes, we do have a right to see who and how much someone is donating, The question is Do we do this to everyone who donates in whole world? I feel its not that fair if we just discriminate to the presidential candidates, but what about other organizations who also receive large lump sum of money that has been donated. We as a people only care about things that of course impact us. When we make decisions we don't think about others and what actually makes a difference. Plus, I don't think having disclose donors on Super PAC ads will make a difference in anything. Everything will still run the same and there will still be a "bidding war" in every campaign. I would say I do not agree with this editorial. It is a useless thing to do. I feel we need concentrate on things that will make a difference and stop worrying about things that doesn't matter.

No Child Left Behind

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about our future children. On February, 9th, 2012, USA Today published an article that President Obama will be giving 10 states a education wavier. That is a wonderful idea. The reason I say this is because it will give educators lead way and room to educate everyone. Most people will like to think that all children will have to learn the same but realistically they do not. So, when the children didn't meet the requirements in being proficient in reading and math they were considered as "Failure".  This idea will help those who are struggling, not only just the minority or the low-income. I feel this will give the teachers more hope, and flexibility it help those in need of extra educational assistance in school. This wavier may seem like we are spending federal dollars on the wrong thing, but it will benefit in the future for our children and our government. The schools that are scoring low will have to step it up, but then the children may actually see that we care about their future, and may feel the need to do better. I am happy to see this, and hope we all can see the difference it will make for all of us.