Archive for April 5th, 2007

South Carolina’s ultrasound bill

Thursday, April 5th, 2007

Perhaps you’ve heard of South Carolina’s latest attempt to embarass itself? It’s called HR 3355, a bill which would add the following to South Carolina law.

Any woman who wants to have an abortion, for whatever reason would be forced to have and view an ultrasound of the fetus:

The obstetric ultrasound must be performed by the physician who is to perform the abortion or a certified technician working in conjunction with the physician.

The images viewed by the physician or certified technician to verify the gestational age must be reproduced and reviewed with the mother by the physician or allied health professional working in conjunction with the physician prior to the woman giving informed consent to having an abortion procedure performed.

[…]

The woman must certify in writing, before the abortion, that the information and obstetric ultrasound images […] have been provided to and reviewed with her

I discussed this bill with my wife the other day. She thinks it’s a boneheaded bill, and I agree. Why do we think this bill is bad?

  1. Our courts have already decided that a woman has a right to control her reproduction. This is just an attempt to add more onerous restrictions on that right.
  2. It’s a cheap scare tactic. Show a woman a picture of something that vaguely resembles a human with the intent of guilt-tripping her into not doing something that she has already made a decision to do.
  3. The state is forcing an unnecessary medical procedure on a woman, who will not benefit in any way from the procedure.
  4. To add injury to insult, the state will apparently force the woman to pay for the procedure. Unless I missed it, there is no mention of funding being provided for these mandatory ultrasounds.
  5. South Carolina already has a relatively low abortion rate. What problem are legislators trying to solve here – aside from the omni-present need to pander to a certain set of religious conservatives?
  6. Presumably, the intent of this bill is for women to give birth to more unwanted children. Given the fact that South Carolina does such a poor job with the children we do want, how can this possibly be a good thing? (South Carolina’s infant mortality rate is one of the highest in the nation.)

We here at Shrimp and Grits are not pleased that our legislators are wasting time with such foolishness.

Bachelor’s or bust?

Thursday, April 5th, 2007

Take a look at this graph, showing college enrollment (in thousands of students) from the 1970s through 2005.


Source data: US Census Bureau

The red curve is what you probably expected. College enrollment increases fairly steadily with time. (The sharp dip in the late 70s is an artifact of changing the method of counting students).

But there’s a wrinkle. The red curve counts only undergraduates at four-year colleges. The blue curve shows the situation in America’s two-year colleges: community colleges, junior colleges, and technical colleges. Enrollment in our two-year colleges is flat, and has been so since the early 1990s. Before 1990, two-year college enrollment grew along with four-year enrollment.

Is the conventional wisdom that you need at least a bachelor’s degree to get any kind of worthwhile job now so entrenched that nobody thinks to go to a two-year school anymore?

Since I teach at a two-year school, the flat enrollment figures concern me. I worry that students who are perfectly capable of getting a two-year degree and a good job*** are being siphoned off by four-year schools – who then proceed to chew many of them up and spit them out without either a degree or useful job skills.

So, why are two-year college numbers so flat? Your thoughts?


***Who do you think has better job prospects? A new registered nurse with an associate’s degree in nursing, or someone who has just gotten their bachelor of arts in English?