For school we're having to write a persuasive paper on a topic of our chosing. I recently had to switch mine because, I was having issues finding information on my other topic. The topic I got switchted to is 'Contraception in schools' basically whether school nurses should or should be allowed to give out contraceptives, confidetially and at low cost. Just out of curiosity more than anything I was wondering what Other people thought about this topic. Any of your opinions would be apretiated, and/or imformation that could help me with my paper...

I think that once this kids are around high school age, that condoms should be available to them through a school nurse, pehaps, and birth control if the girl is at least 16-17, most health clinics will give out condoms and have birth control available cheaply for young girls confidentially. However, I don't think they should be passing out condoms during home room, people say it will encourage sex, well they should make them available but not force them on kids. And as for children who are like 12, they don't need to be having sex, if the parent did anywhere close to a decent job parenting, they wouldn't even be considering having sex until they are several years older, I don't think we need to be giving condoms or BC to them.

I say stop letting the schools take decisions like this away from the parents. Schools should be giving education, not contraceptives.

I say stop letting the schools take decisions like this away from the parents. Schools should be giving education, not contraceptives.

There it is there.

I don't know, the schools don't want to offend parents by offering education, they often have to have permission to learn about contraception, and many schools have abstinence only programs and those are obviously failing, and many, many studies have proven that.

There was a recent thread about this:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/middle-school-contraceptives-142731.html

You can see people express opinions on both sides.

Presumably every child in school has a parent or a legal guardian . Before the school distributes contraception of any kind; it should be a requirement that the parent /guardian signs a healthcare proxy waver to the school specific to the distribution of contraceptives. The general waiver currently used that alows the school to give the kid an aspirin should not be sufficient.

I agree with Tom. (Is that the seventh sign? :D)

I don't think the Pill should be available through schools, but condoms should be there for anyone who has the balls to ask the school nurse for them.

The REASON I don't think schools should be giving out the birth control pill is because I believe you should have a full medical examination, plus talk to a doctor about everything ELSE you're taking/doing. Some medications interact badly with others, and I believe (but I am not sure) that there are some that would render the Pill useless.

Because of the fact that it is medication, I don't want the school providing MEDICATION to my child without my consent. If my kid wanted information--well, that's different.

I believe the schools should be teaching sex-ed, and that it should be a heck of a lot more comprehensive than "Don't have SEX! It's bad! You'll get a disease or get pregnant or BOTH!". But once we open the doors to schools being able to provide birth control pills without our consent, what OTHER medications will they be able to give out without parental consent?

Yeah, abstinence only sex ed is just propagating ignorance and putting kids lives at risk because they know nothing. Knoledge won't force kids to have sex if they don't want to in the first place, and it won't hurt them either.

Originally Posted by RickJ
I say stop letting the schools take decisions like this away from the parents. Schools should be giving education, not contraceptives.

Another ditto from me. I cannot fathom schools such as those in Maine and Denver wanting to give prescription birth control and even emergency contraception to teens, and at least in the case of Denver the responsibility falling to "High school principals (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5735549,00.html) in consultation with health centers' staff."

I thought principals were educators, not doctors. The proponents of this nonsense are "pro-choice" and yet their goal is to take choice away from the parents that are responsible for raising these children, and that is unacceptable.

Yeah, abstinence only sex ed is just propagating ignorance and putting kids lives at risk because they know nothing.

Can anyone prove that? If so, how? How many kids do you think don't know about condoms?

Can anyone prove that? If so, how? How many kids do you think don't know about condoms?

I haven't read all of this, but you might want to check this document out for the problems with abstinence only education.

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf

They're lying to the kids, speech; they aren't giving them the information they need to make healthy decisions. And just because you know about condoms doesn't mean you know enough to use them properly. Poke around on the pregnancy and sexuality forums here, and you'll see just how UN-educated teens are about sex, contraception and pregnancy. That's the result of current education systems not working.

First Rise in U.S. Teen Births Since '91 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNr8EfEubvWa5704kidhUIPhvkiwD8TBJF081)

By MIKE STOBBE – 15 hours ago

ATLANTA (AP) — In a troubling reversal, the nation's teen birth rate rose for the first time in 15 years, surprising government health officials and reviving the bitter debate about abstinence-only sex education.

The birth rate had been dropping since its peak in 1991, although the decline had slowed in recent years. On Wednesday, government statisticians said it rose 3 percent from 2005 to 2006.

The reason for the increase is not clear, and federal health officials said it might be a one-year statistical blip, not the beginning of a new upward trend.

However, some experts said they have been expecting a jump. They blamed it on increased federal funding for abstinence-only health education that doesn't teach teens how to use condoms and other contraception.

Some key sexually transmitted disease rates have been rising, including syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia. The rising teen pregnancy rate is part of the same phenomenon, said Dr. Carol Hogue, an Emory University professor of maternal and child health.

"It's not rocket science," she said.

At the same time, some research suggests teens are using condoms far more often than they did 15 years ago.

The new teen birth numbers are based on the 15-19 age group of women, which accounted for most of the 440,000 births to teens in 2006. The rate rose to nearly 42 births per 1,000 in that group, up from 40.5 in 2005. That translates to an extra 20,000 births to teen mothers.

In 1991, the peak year for teen births, there were nearly 62 births per 1,000.

The new report is based on a review of more than 99 percent of the birth certificates from last year by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The report, released Wednesday, quickly took on political implications.

Opponents of abstinence-based programs seized on the data as evidence of wrong-headed government policy.

"Congress needs to stop knee-jerk approving abstinence-only funding when it's clear it's not working," said U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo. who is pushing for more comprehensive sex education.

The new report offers a state-by-state breakdown of birth rates overall. Many of those with the highest birth rates teach abstinence instead of comprehensive sex education, according to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

And research has concluded that abstinence-only programs do not cause a decrease in teenage sexual activity, Planned Parenthood officials added.

"In the last decade, more than $1 billion has been wasted on abstinence-only programs," said Cecile Richards, the organization's president, in a prepared statement.

Decreased condom use and increased sexual activity are two likely explanations for the higher teen birth rate. But not all data supports those theories, said John Santelli, a professor of population and family health at Columbia University's school of public health.

For example, a biannual government survey of high school students found that the percentage of those who said they used a condom the last time they had sex rose to 63 percent in 2005, up from 46 percent in 1991.

Contraceptive-focused sex education is still common, and the new teen birth numbers reflect it's failing, argued Moira Gaul of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy organization in Washington, D.C.

Condom use among teens has risen 17 percent and yet teen births and STD's are rising. Furthermore, according to government reports back in July, fewer teens are having sex.


In 2005, 47 percent of high school students -- 6.7 million -- reported having had sexual intercourse, down from 54 percent in 1991.

If more kids are using condoms and fewer kids are having sex, why are teen births and STD's rising? Note this report from Contraceptive Information Resource (http://www.contracept.info/teenrates.php) on teen birth control failure rates.


8.1 percent use no method of birth control.
8.5 percent use male condoms, 17.7 fail after one year, 27.5 percent fail after two
16.7 percent us oral contraceptives, 8.6 fail after one year, 14 percent fail after two
0.6 percent use contraceptive patch, 8.6 fail after one year 14 percent fail after two 4.4 percent use Depo-Provera, 4.3 fail after one year, 8.5 percent fail after two
56.2 percent use abstinence, there are zero failures

Condom use among teens has risen 17 percent and yet teen births and STD's are rising. Furthermore, according to government reports back in July, fewer teens are having sex.

Kids lie, especially teenagers. Also, condoms aren't 100% effective, everyone knows that. Teens especially are going to be more likely to use them inconsistently or improperly. They also might use condoms that are expired, don't fit, or otherwise should not have been used.


56.2 percent use abstinence, there are zero failures[/INDENT]

Of course abstinence has a zero failure rate. But that doesn't mean that current abstinence only education is the right way to be educating our kids. Read the link I posted; you can see for yourself the medical inaccuracies and manipulation of statistics in those programs. Should kids wait until adulthood or marriage before having sex? Absolutely. Should they be given accurate, factual information about contraceptives, STDs and pregnancy? Absolutely. Abstinence only programs DON'T DO THAT.

56.2 percent use abstinence, there are zero failuresDid you know that 100% of people who don't drive cars do not have car insurance??

Again I say, facts are useless, they can be used to prove anything.

again I say, facts are useless, they can be used to prove anything.

With all due respect that's just plain silly. Facts are that which is actually true.

Kids lie, especially teenagers. Also, condoms aren't 100% effective, everyone knows that. Teens especially are going to be more likely to use them inconsistently or improperly. They also might use condoms that are expired, don't fit, or otherwise should not have been used.

I've already conceded previously that kids lie, and I'd be foolish to believe there are kids that don't know how to use a condom, but that does not justify any outside organization undermining parental authority, rights and values.


Of course abstinence has a zero failure rate. But that doesn't mean that current abstinence only education is the right way to be educating our kids. Read the link I posted; you can see for yourself the medical inaccuracies and manipulation of statistics in those programs. Should kids wait until adulthood or marriage before having sex? Absolutely. Should they be given accurate, factual information about contraceptives, STDs and pregnancy? Absolutely. Abstinence only programs DON'T DO THAT.

I have never said I support "current" abstinence education. In fact, I believe public schools should be teaching reading, writing and arithmetic and leave the rest for responsible parents to decide. Yeah, I know that leaves those kids who don't have responsible parents and that is a problem, but for the millions of responsible moms dads out there the government has no business intruding in personal areas such as sex and teaching or espousing values that run counter to the parents.

That's what the very proponents of sex education expect when it comes to religion and political values in school - and the "right to choose" (or right to privacy, however they look at it today) for both minors and adults - it's only fair and consistent for them to respect the right of parents to choose how to raise their children as well without interference and subversion.

Can anyone prove that? If so, how? How many kids do you think don't know about condoms?


George Washington University did a study on the results after abstinence only sex-ed and found it to be failing. And honestly, in my high school there were abstinence only sex ed and some kids did not understand proper condom usage or thought that one birth control pill would protect them from pregnancy. It was an outrage, theywere screwing these kids by not teaching them right.

I have never said I support "current" abstinence education. In fact, I believe public schools should be teaching reading, writing and arithmetic and leave the rest for responsible parents to decide. Yeah, I know that leaves those kids who don't have responsible parents and that is a problem, but for the millions of responsible moms dads out there the government has no business intruding in personal areas such as sex and teaching or espousing values that run counter to the parents.

The millions of responsible parents out there can opt their kids out of the programs. It's the millions of IRresponsible parents out there who make organizations like PP necessary.


That's what the very proponents of sex education expect when it comes to religion and political values in school - and the "right to choose" (or right to privacy, however they look at it today) for both minors and adults - it's only fair and consistent for them to respect the right of parents to choose how to raise their children as well without interference and subversion.

Again, the fairness comes with the parents having the ability to opt their kids out of the programs. I fully support that, and if my kid went to a school that taught abstinence-only, you bet your a$$ I'd opt them out.

I think we're meshing threads here, speech! :)

And obviously these kids parents were failing them, too, as pregnancy was like 7 of 60 girlsbefore my class graduated... and if no one watches out for these kids, shouldn't the school do it?

The millions of responsible parents out there can opt their kids out of the programs. It's the millions of IRresponsible parents out there who make organizations like PP necessary.

Surely you can guess I don't think PP is necessary at all :D


Again, the fairness comes with the parents having the ability to opt their kids out of the programs. I fully support that, and if my kid went to a school that taught abstinence-only, you bet your a$$ I'd opt them out.

Works for me. Now if both sides would get that through their thick skulls we might begin to get somewhere :)

Can anyone prove that? If so, how? How many kids do you think don't know about condoms?


George Washington University did a study on the results after abstinence only sex-ed and found it to be failing. And honestly, in my high school there were abstinence only sex ed and some kids did not understand proper condom usage or thought that one birth control pill would protect them from pregnancy. It was an outrage, theywere screwing these kids by not teaching them right.

Charlotte, it's interesting that so many have raised the issue of the "failure" of abstinence only education when responding to me, as I haven't advocated abstinence only education. I don't think our government should be teaching either, especially since they can't even seem to be able to teach kids basic math (http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071202/COMMENTARY/112020010/1012).

I'm not saying you did, I'm saying that they need to teach contraception. I'm saying that condoms should be available to kids.

PP isn't necessary?

Why not just teach kids that having sex makes their penises fall off and that you sex makes them go to Hell.

Ignorance will never help anyone. PP helps people learn, gives them help, gives them options and choices. I think although I'm a Christian that church programs aren't necessary personally, but I don't make the decisions for the world and neither do you, so before you say something isn't necessary put yourself in the shoes of the people who benefit from it.

I'm not saying you did, I'm saying that they need to teach contraception. I'm saying that condoms should be available to kids.

Um, they are.

PP isn't necessary?

Why not just teach kids that having sex makes their penises fall off and that you sex makes them go to Hell.

LOL, I love it when people take it to the extreme for no apparent reason.


Ignorance will never help anyone. PP helps people learn, gives them help, gives them options and choices. I think although I'm a Christian that church programs aren't necessary personally, but I don't make the decisions for the world and neither do you, so before you say something isn't necessary put yourself in the shoes of the people who benefit from it.

I'm not trying to make decisions for the world, I just gave my opinion. My opinion is PP is an evil, subversive organization responsible for the deaths of more children in this country than anyone else. I find they're hiding behind "health care" an insult to the human race, and their continued support for the erosion of parental authority to be just what you complain of - making decisions for others.

Surely you can guess I don't think PP is necessary at all :D [QUOTE]

I know you don't, but you think that, it seems, because of your negative experience with them. You appear to ignore the GOOD they have done, or could do. You don't appear to acknowledge the women in this country who don't have a support system at home, who don't have anyone educating them about sex and who, in a time of need have an organization to go to. Not everyone comes from a loving, supportive family who will be there for you in your time of need. These girls need to have someone to turn to for information on women's health and their options in accidental pregnancy situations. Would Planned Parenthood by any other name be as evil?

I know you had a bad (horrible) experience with PP, but, in my opinion, that one instance doesn't make the entire organization "evil". Perhaps if I knew the intimate details of your experience I would change my mind, but given what I know, I don't think PP is the only party at fault.

[QUOTE]My opinion is PP is an evil, subversive organization responsible for the deaths of more children in this country than anyone else. I find they're hiding behind "health care" an insult to the human race, and their continued support for the erosion of parental authority to be just what you complain of - making decisions for others.

Now who's taking it to the extreme? ;)

I don't think they should.

Why is planned parenthood evil? Because they offer abortion services to women? So now, not only can a girl not get a condom at school or BC through the school nurse, but she can't find help if she wants to abort the baby she created because of her lack of information or assistance. I wasn't taking anything to the extreme, I was mocking the way you sound. I'm not saying give condoms and BC to 12 year old, but to girls in high school, definitely, their parents may not support them and may not allow them to do what they need to do to protect themselves because they are trying to keep them from doing something they're obviously going to anyway.

My opinion is PP is an evil, subversive organization responsible for the deaths of more children in this country than anyone else.That sounds like someone harboring a lot of anger and hatred.

Think about the world we live in today. There is influences every where that tells kids that sex is fun, it feels good, it's a game, it makes you a grown up and there is no consequences. And yes I will say it…parents plays a big part in what kids do with their spare time. You put satellite TV in the kids room to watch what ever they please. You let them listen to sexually explicit music. You give them there own cell phones and computers with out keeping track of what they are doing and who they are talking to. You get divorces and have your boyfriend/ girlfriends stay over while your children are in the next room. You are so busy trying to keep up with the Jones you don't have time to keep up with where your kids are or what they are doing. You fool yourselves into thinking that a 13 year old is mature enough to make the right decision and forget that they are still kids. You give them freedoms at 13 to run around and do as they please that 16 year olds probably shouldn't have. If other parents or teachers confront you about your child's behavior you go into a rampage, “ Not my little angel!” God forbid that they might need a hand on the butt as a form of punishment once in a while….Oh no that's abuse! You treat them like little miniature adults they are not, they are kids! You don't see what is right in front of your eyes, you don't listen to them when they speak and you are embarrassed to talk to them about sex. Then you wonder why they are having sex! Sure there are exceptions where teen girls and boys end up with babies even though their parents did everything right, but in general as long as we have public schools with kids who's parents are not being responsible this will go on forever. Now that I got that off my chest….
Statistics shows that a lot of teens have sex by the time they are 14. It is better they know how to protect them self's from HIV, pregnancy and STD's and they need to have access to the tools to protect themselves if they do decide to have sex.

Besides, if they're going to do it, they're going to do it, there's a point where a kid starts taking their own chances and making their own decisions and sometimes it doesn't matter what the parents do. Keeping them ignorant and unable to get protection is just stupid.

Aside from the moral implications of this entire conversation--who knows a teen that did/does NOT have the attitude "It happens, but statistics show that it probably won't happen to ME. Especially not if I'm CAREFUL!"

They apply that to their sex lives, their driving, their attitude towards death.

It's not just condoms anymore, stonewilder. There is a school in Maine which is providing birth control pills to pre-teens. That's where the bigger controversy lies.

FOXNews.com - School Board Approves Birth Control Prescriptions at Maine Middle School - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303058,00.html)

It's not just condoms anymore, stonewilder. There is a school in Maine which is providing birth control pills to pre-teens. That's where the bigger controversy lies.

FOXNews.com - School Board Approves Birth Control Prescriptions at Maine Middle School - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303058,00.html)


Ok I missed that part of it. I can admit that passing out birth control pills is taking it a step too far with out the parents permission. I say that for two reasons. One a parent needs to know what medications their kids are on and two, if they are using birth control that means they aren't likely to be using the condoms.

That sounds like someone harboring a lot of anger and hatred.

The word is contempt. :D

Why is planned parenthood evil? Because they offer abortion services to women?

For my personal beef with PP, click here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/forget-hillary-care-what-about-school-based-health-care-142147-post673979.html&highlight=daughter+aids+planned+parenthood#post673 979).


So now, not only can a girl not get a condom at school or BC through the school nurse, but she can't find help if she wants to abort the baby she created because of her lack of information or assistance.

Seriously now, since when is it the school's place to manage youth's sex lives? You don't find it a little disturbing that a 15 year old girl can't get a drivers license, can't buy a beer, a cigarette or go to an R-rated movie but it's OK for her to get an abortion? There's something very wrong with that, and very wrong with such a callous disregard for human life, for that "baby she created" that people would actually defend abortions for kids for the sake of convenience.


I wasn't taking anything to the extreme, I was mocking the way you sound. I'm not saying give condoms and BC to 12 year old, but to girls in high school, definitely, their parents may not support them and may not allow them to do what they need to do to protect themselves because they are trying to keep them from doing something they're obviously going to anyway.

Mocking, even better, lol. It's interesting how anyone that shows deserved contempt for PP and the chaos they've helped create gets mocked. Do you not find it ironic and inconsistent to mock me for fighting for the right to privacy - the right for parents to raise their children without government or Planned Parenthood interference - while a group that bases its abortion defense on "privacy rights" fights against that parental right to privacy?

Here's the thing on your last point - it's not just justifying this condom giveaway because "they're obviously going to anyways" - it's a surrender. Why should we surrender to the possibility of a future of guilt, shame, torment for our children? Why should we just give up and say "they're obviously going to anyways?" Aren't they worth more than that?

Aside from the moral implications of this entire conversation--who knows a teen that did/does NOT have the attitude "It happens, but statistics show that it probably won't happen to ME. Especially not if I'm CAREFUL!"

They apply that to their sex lives, their driving, their attitude towards death.

You are absolutely right, and that's a big reason why I would never trust my children in the hands of PP or the government.

As I have said before, I think that we are forgetting the ability of adults to influence children in a positive way through education.

Over the past several years, we have seen educational efforts regarding smoking pay off. Fewer kids are smoking, thanks to education and ad campaigns.

Over the past several years, we have seen educational efforts regarding drugs pay off. Fewer kids are doing drugs of any kind, thanks to education and ad campaigns.

Over the past several years, we have seen educational efforts regarding drinking and driving pay off. Fewer kids are getting behind the wheel after drinking, thanks to education and ad campaigns.

These were once areas where we were SURE that we could have no impact on our kids. And yet we have seen these efforts pay off.

So, to those who say that educational efforts regarding abstension will not work, I point out these cases where such educational efforts DID work.

There are those who want to see abstension-only education in schools. Those who are against it ague that it won't prevent kids from having sex. But neither is giving them BC or condoms. In fact, you are practically ensuring that they WILL have sex if you hand them condoms and BC without educating them on abstension as an alternative. And the one thing that giving out condoms and BC is schools has NOT done is lower the incidence of teen pregnancy. So the argument that we need to give our kids contraception in schools in order to prevent them from getting pregnant is proving to be untrue. It isn't preventing any such thing. But it is giving kids the impression that having sex is okay.

On the other hand, abstinence education worked very well during the years prior to 1960... the incidence of teen pregnancy was nil, and nobody complained. On the other hand, times were different... kids didn't know as much as they do now. So the equation might not be the same as it was 40-50 years ago.

So... what do we have here.

- We have something which has not been tried in 40 years: abstinence education. It has not been tried because people argue that it wouldn't work, despite the fact that similar efforts in different areas have worked, and despite the fact that abstinence educatuion did work prior to 1960.

- We have something which has been proven not to work that is still being pushed as the most effective means of controlling teen pregnancy: contraception in schools. It has been argued as the best way to stop teen pregnancy, despite the fact that there has been no decrease in teen pregnancy.

So, if what we are doing now isn't working, why aren't we willing to try something else that has a good chance of working in the long term? If school contraception isn't working, why aren't we willing to teach abstinence?

Elliot

There are those who want to see abstension-only education in schools. Those who are against it ague that it won't prevent kids from having sex. But neither is giving them BC or condoms. In fact, you are practicaly ensuring that they WILL have sex if you hand them condoms and BC without educating them on abstension as an alternative. And the one thing that giving out condoms and BC is schools has NOT done is lower the incidence of teen pregnancy. So the argument that we need to give our kids contraception in schools in order to prevent them from getting pregnant is proving to be untrue. It isn't preventing any such thing. But it is giving kids the impression that having sex is okay.

In my opinion, teaching abstinence isn't the problem - teaching the current abstinence only program which is full of factually incorrect information and doesn't discuss contraceptives at all is the problem. That just means the kids who DO decide to have sex have no clue at how to prevent pregnancy or infection. We can't expect teens to grow into adulthood and be able to make informed decisions if we lie to them to keep their pants on when they're kids. Uninformed teens = uninformed adults, and well... there are enough of those already! :D

If there were a program which focused on abstinence first, but also provided factual information about contraceptives, STDs, abortion, teen pregnancy and so on, I'd be all for it. I think that what people forget is that teens grow into adults, and while it might be nice for everyone to wait until marriage, that's just not the case for most. So if two un-married 30-somethings decide to have sex, it's important they too know the risks and prevention methods. Personally, I'm more concerned with preventing teens from having sex than preventing consenting adults; so maybe I advocate "abstinence until adulthood". I don't know.

As I have said before, I think that we are forgetting the ability of adults to influence children in a positive way through education...

So, to those who say that educational efforts regarding abstension will not work, I point out these cases where such educational efforts DID work.

Amen, brother.


There are those who want to see abstension-only education in schools. Those who are against it ague that it won't prevent kids from having sex. But neither is giving them BC or condoms. In fact, you are practically ensuring that they WILL have sex if you hand them condoms and BC without educating them on abstension as an alternative. And the one thing that giving out condoms and BC is schools has NOT done is lower the incidence of teen pregnancy. So the argument that we need to give our kids contraception in schools in order to prevent them from getting pregnant is proving to be untrue. It isn't preventing any such thing. But it is giving kids the impression that having sex is okay.

Like I said before, justifying BC and condoms in schools is surrender. The critics argue that PP does teach abstinence as an alternative but they have many definitions of abstinence. Part of their decades long campaign is to tell kids that having sex is OK. They don't imply it, they come right out and encourage them to explore their sexuality and arm them with the tools and techniques.

So your claim is that the rise is teenage birth is mainly PP's fault?

In my opinion, teaching abstinence isn't the problem - teaching the current abstinence only program which is full of factually incorrect information and doesn't discuss contraceptives at all is the problem. That just means the kids who DO decide to have sex have no clue at how to prevent pregnancy or infection.

And what is the best way to prevent pregnancy or infection?

Furthermore, do we teach kids not to play with matches, or do we tell them that not playing with matches is the "best choice" but don't worry about playing with matches as long as they have a fire-extiguisher? Do we teach our kids that there are choices with regard to playing with matches, or do we simply prohibit them from doing it? Personally, I keep my kids from playing with matches in the first place.

Why is it any different with sex? Why are we teaching kids that not having sex is the "best choice" but there's really nothing to wory about as long as you have birth control. Why aren't we telling them not to have sex... and there is no other choice?


We can't expect teens to grow into adulthood and be able to make informed decisions if we lie to them to keep their pants on when they're kids.

I'm not saying we should lie to them. But I am saying that as parents and educators we should take a stronger position on teen sex. It is NOT ALLOWED. If you do it you will suffer the consequences.

That is as truthful as can be... if you are a teen having sex, there will be consequences that range from social to medical to educational, to financial. Therefore, don't do it. Nor will we as authority figures assist you in do this or look the other way when you do this.

Why are we not taking this tact to the issue? Why are we saying it's okay as long as you use protection? Its NOT okay, and we need to stop giving kids the message that it is okay. And the only way to do that is to prohibit the action. That's abstinence education. And that is the argument against BC in schools.

[/quote]Uninformed teens = uninformed adults, and well... there are enough of those already! :D [/quote]

That is certainly true.


If there were a program which focused on abstinence first, but also provided factual information about contraceptives, STDs, abortion, teen pregnancy and so on, I'd be all for it.

Well, I would be more in favor of that than what we have now. But I still see it as giving a mixed message of "It's okay as long as you don't get into trouble." I don't think its okay.


I think that what people forget is that teens grow into adults, and while it might be nice for everyone to wait until marriage, that's just not the case for most.

That's the problem. And that is part of the abstinance education campaign that I'm talking about... a move similar to what MADD did for drunk driving and TRUTH did for teen smoking. Teaching kids that it's okay to say no, that waiting is a good thing, that they don't have to give in to peer pressure, and that those who are pushing you to do these things do not have your best interests at heart. After a decade (or more) of ad campaigns, drunk driving among teens is down and teen smoking is down. The message with smoking was "Don't Smoke", not "smoking is okay, as long as its cigars or pipes, not cigarrettes". The message with drinking was "If you drink, don't get behind the wheel" not "You can drive drunk as long as you are wearing a helmet." The messages were clear: this action is prohibbited and if you do it you will be hurt.

Why wouldn't a similar campaign work for abstinence education? Why are we so concerned with sending a mixed message to our kids that they shouldn't have sex... but if you do, used protection? Why aren't we simply saying "Don't have sex or you will suffer the consequences."


So if two un-married 30-somethings decide to have sex, it's important they too know the risks and prevention methods. Personally, I'm more concerned with preventing teens from having sex than preventing consenting adults; so maybe I advocate "abstinence until adulthood". I don't know.

I can deal with that. What adults do isn't my concern. But what kids do IS my concern.

Elliot

So your claim is that the rise is teenage birth is mainly PP's fault?

No NK, I've said repeatedly it's the culture - but PP is a prime culprit in advancing that culture. It seems obvious to me their way has failed, they've had their chance for decades and you will never solve the problems of teen pregnancy, STD's and abortion by encouraging hormonal kids to engage in the very activities that put them at risk in the first place. Why is that not obvious to people?

And what is the best way to prevent pregnancy or infection?

Why is it any different with sex? Why are we teaching kids that not having sex is the "best choice" but there's really nothing to wory about as long as you have birth control. Why aren't we telling them not to have sex... and there is no other choice?

The best way to prevent pregnancy and infection? Gee, how about telling kids the TRUTH instead of lying to them? How about making sure kids know how to use condoms so, if they decide as an adult to engage in sexual activity they know how to prevent pregnancy and infection? Or, so the teens who DO engage in it (you know they're out there, they always will be) don't wind up pregnant or with herpes?

I'm not saying tell them not to is best, but if you do, do it safe. I'm saying it's wrong to lie to our teens about sex, contraceptives and STDs. Stress abstinence, but make sure they are informed to make decisions to have SAFE sex as ADULTS. It's NOT acceptable for teens to be having sex, but sex education which talks about contraceptives doesn't have to condone it.


I'm not saying we should lie to them. But I am saying that as parents and educators we should take a stronger position on teen sex. It is NOT ALLOWED. If you do it you will suffer the consequences.

That is as truthful as can be... if you are a teen having sex, there will be consequences that range from social to medical to educational, to financial. Therefore, don't do it. Nor will we as authority figures assist you in do this or look the other way when you do this.

Why are we not taking this tact to the issue? Why are we saying it's okay as long as you use protection? Its NOT okay, and we need to stop giving kids the message that it is okay. And the only way to do that is to prohibit the action. That's abstinence education. And that is the argument against BC in schools.

The problem is the current abstinence program DOES lie. It tells teens abortion makes you sterile and AIDS is transmitted via sweat and tears. Both of those assertions are WRONG and are there to scare the kids, not teach them. I agree, as parents and educators we should take a stronger position against teen sex, but you can get that message across without lies.

I never said tell them it's OK as long as you use protection. I said it's NOT OK to LIE. Again, I'm not opposed to abstinence education, I'm opposed to the current abstinence-only education.


Well, I would be more in favor of that than what we have now. But I still see it as giving a mixed message of "It's okay as long as you don't get into trouble." I don't think its okay.

Sorry, but I don't see how telling kids about contraceptives and STD prevention is giving them the green light to have sex. Beyond that, back to my point about uneducated adults; we have to inform them at some point, and, by your own admission, you don't care what adults do. How can you expect adults to make the right decisions if they were never taught about the right decisions as teens?


Teaching kids that it's okay to say no, that waiting is a good thing, that they don't have to give in to peer pressure, and that those who are pushing you to do these things do not have your best interests at heart.

Which is the same thing I'm saying. I just think it's important to include contraceptive and STD education with that information. I don't think it's sending a mixed message, I think it's educating them and making them equipped for the future. What good does it do to cut down on teen pregnancy rates and STD infections in teens, if it skyrockets once they hit their 20s because no one ever taught them how to prevent such things?


I can deal with that. What adults do isn't my concern. But what kids do IS my concern.

And kids grow into adults. I'm all for keeping teens from having sex, but I don't want to see the infection rates and pregnancy rates jump a few years into the 20s.

What's wrong with telling teens to wait, stress the physical and emotional strain sex has on young relationships, stress how damaging pregnancy can be as a teen, how an STD can ruin your life, and that by waiting until they are in adulthood they are better equipped to handle these things. Then let them know once they DO decide to have sex once they are adults there are ways to prevent these things, and let them know about contraceptives. Talk about those things as something for the future, not the present. WAITING is for the present.

I'm really torn about contraceptives in school. I DON'T think the nurse should be able to hand out the pill without parental consent, but I'm on the fence about condoms. On the one hand teens can get them OTC, so unless we want to put an age limit on them, what's the difference? If condoms are easily accessible, maybe teens will be more likely to use them. Then again, maybe having access to them will encourage some teens to have sex sooner than they are ready. All I can say for sure is this: I was in high school less than ten years ago; I would NEVER have gone to the nurse to get condoms, and I didn't know anyone else who would either. I can also say the way my school handled sex ed did nothing to prevent me from doing way too much way to early. I, like most teens had the invincibility complex, and, lucky for me, it worked out in my favor. It did NOT work out in favor for several of my friends, however. Maybe recent graduates should be the ones who design sex ed programs; after all, they're the ones who know more than anyone else what teens are more likely to respond to.

Obviously the parents have failed that child anyway if they need to get BC or condoms at school, if they are having sex that young, if they are pregnant, and if they want to get an abortion, so we should force them to keep a baby they can't afford, don't want, can't raise properly, all the while messing up their own lives because their parents didn't do a good job and they had an accident?


Someone has to take responsibility for the kids and since the parents have failed and the child is incapable, why not give them the protection and options they need?

Tha parents have FAILED when it gets to the point that they are seeking help elsewhere. Maybe you can raise your children correctly, and they won't have that problem, and you will have the right to privacy, but when the parents have failed, they don't deserve privacy at the expense of their child.


Aren't our children worth protecting since their parents have failed? We tried to teach them better, it has'nt worked. My parents told me to not do thing when I was young and I didn't listen, it's the nature of children. I never got pregnant, or anything like that, but no one just does as their parents say all their life.

I think the real "future of guilt, shame, torment" lies in the teeagers who made a mistake and got pregnant because they were to afraid, didn't know about, or couldn't get protection, and then they are forced to have a child at a young age, and not be able to live their own lives first.

Planned parenthood does provide help to some people, and I'm sorry for your issue with them, but it's not planned parenthood who did that to your daughter. They made a mistake, obviously, but it wasn't their fault/mistake that caused things to end that way in in the first place.

Girls should be able to talk with their parents about getting an abortion or protection if thy want, but some parents won't allow them to get the pill, tell them not to have sex, tell them abortion is off-limits. The fact is that when the parents do not allow the girl to make her own choices and be okay with them, the girl ends up going to places like PP, which is unfortunate because we should be able to have a girl go to any doctor's office, any hospital, and get medical treatment.

I still don't believe in forcing women to have babies they don't want, can't afford, regret, and who they can'r provide or care for properly (unfair to that chid anyways), not for their parents, not for their boyfriends, not for any one else. They should only have to do what THEY Want to when it comes to reproduction.

No NK, I've said repeatedly it's the culture - but PP is a prime culprit in advancing that culture. It seems obvious to me their way has failed, they've had their chance for decades and you will never solve the problems of teen pregnancy, STD's and abortion by encouraging hormonal kids to engage in the very activities that put them at risk in the first place. Why is that not obvious to people?


At least they're trying to help people by providing services, information, and protection instead of just telling them to keep it in their pant, which is obviously NOT working.

Sure they're not perfect, but neither is anyone or any other other program to help people. No one is successful 100% of the time.

The problem is the current abstinence program DOES lie.


Thank you!

I'm saying it's wrong to lie to our teens about sex

Of course it is, lying is wrong on BOTH sides.

I'd rather see a teenager with a condom in their pocket that a baby in their arms.

Altenweg, I could hug youuuuuu.

I'm saying it's wrong to lie to our teens about sex

Of course it is, lying is wrong on BOTH sides.

Of course it is, lying is wrong on BOTH sides.

I agree. I don't want to lie to our kids by telling them having an abortion makes you sterile or by telling them condoms are 100% effective or that having sex standing up prevents pregnancy.

I sort of wonder if we don't trust teens with decision making because we rarely give them access to the information they need to make decisions. Instead we pepper it with our own agendas and keep quiet about the things we don't want them to know. So many parents treat their kids like precious little snowflakes and when they get into adulthood they are clueless about how to rationalize, think critically or make informed decisions. I'm not saying we should leave it up to teens completely to have or not have sex, but I wonder if we started treating them (with regards to information) more like adults if they would be able to make better decisions on their own (less hand holding from the parents). It's been said time and time again that knowledge is power...

'Course then we mind end up with a bunch of power-drunk teens on our hands... :p

As if they aren't power-drunk anyway XD

Oh, I can drive, I'm invincible, the world owes me!

Kids. :P

I agree. I don't want to lie to our kids by telling them having an abortion makes you sterile or by telling them condoms are 100% effective or that having sex standing up prevents pregnancy.

I sort of wonder if we don't trust teens with decision making because we rarely give them access to the information they need to make decisions. Instead we pepper it with our own agendas and keep quiet about the things we don't want them to know. So many parents treat their kids like precious little snowflakes and when they get into adulthood they are clueless about how to rationalize, think critically or make informed decisions. I'm not saying we should leave it up to teens completely to have or not have sex, but I wonder if we started treating them (with regards to information) more like adults if they would be able to make better decisions on their own

Well, yes and no I suppose. Granted, there were things my parents could have taught me but didn't that would have been helpful. On the other hand I believe we've lost so much by not letting kids be kids. Parents need to be the parents and kids shouldn't be exposed to so many things they aren't equipped to handle. I hear people complain of TV, music and video games rotting their little brains - yet we want them to be exposed to all the details of adult sexual relationships? That doesn't make sense to me, 6 year olds should be playing tee-ball, finger painting and sliding down slides, not preparing for sexual relations.


(less hand holding from the parents). It's been said time and time again that knowledge is power...

Oh I agree there should be less hand holding by parents, I have friends that just drive me nuts over the way they baby and coddle their kids.


'Course then we mind end up with a bunch of power-drunk teens on our hands... :p

Exactly, lol... there has to be a balance.

I'd rather see a teenager with a condom in their pocket that a baby in their arms.

And I'd rather see a baby in their arms than a "non-viable tissue mass" sucked out of their womb. :)

And I'd rather see a baby in their arms than a "non-viable tissue mass" sucked out of their womb.


Not me, they'll be broke and miserable for their whole lives, the baby will not be treated the same way as if it is wanted, it may even be abused or have to go without because the parents can't provide because their lives were messed up by an unplanned pregnancy.The mother is also more liable to have complcations or even death during delivery because her body is not ready to give birth. I think that a viable and very much alive girl's life is more precious than a "non-viable tissue mass". Lesser of two evils I supposd.

Most (almost all) abortions are performed before 20 weeks, across the board, statistics state that.

According to the journal of american medicine, if the fetus can feel pain at all, it doesn't feel pain until at least 28 weeks.

The fetus is not typically even able to survive outside the womb (meaning its organs are not present or not functioning) until around 23 weeks.

Either way, it's a personal choice, and you have no right to say people shouldn't get an abortion because of your morals and values because they may not share your morals and values. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. Simple as that. Don't try to say that people shouldn't have a choice because YOU think it's wrong.

And tell me speechless, are you a man or a woman?

Speechless, I's rather see a non-viable tissue mass sucked out of their womb than a teenager having a baby she's not ready for and tossing it in a trash can or leaving it on the bathroom floor of a public restroom, these things happen everyday, or don't you watch the news? Besides, the issue here isn't about abortion it's about contraception and even though accidents do happen even when you're careful there are definitely tons of options out there that prevent pregnancy and it's not in anyone's best interest not to discuss these options with our kids. You have a right to your opinion as does everyone else in the world. If you don't want your kids using contraception then don't tell them about it, you can deal with a teenage unwed mother when it happens. I'm the mother of two and even though they're both too young to worry about sex and pregnancy I will expose them to contraceptives when the time comes and hope that I've ingrained in them the fact that I am open to hearing anything they have to say and will always listen with an open mind and heart. But there is absolutely no reason that teens should be having children when there are ways to prevent it and short of locking them up in a monastery you are not going to prevent these teens from having sex. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Well, yes and no I suppose. Granted, there were things my parents could have taught me but didn't that would have been helpful. On the other hand I believe we've lost so much by not letting kids be kids. Parents need to be the parents and kids shouldn't be exposed to so many things they aren't equipped to handle. I hear people complain of TV, music and video games rotting their little brains - yet we want them to be exposed to all the details of adult sexual relationships? That doesn't make sense to me, 6 year olds should be playing tee-ball, finger painting and sliding down slides, not preparing for sexual relations.

I agree, lots of kids aren't allowed to be just kids. Sometimes we treat them like mini-adults when they should be playing in the dirt and giving each other cootie shots. I'm thinking more about older kids - teens. I have a 15 year old sister in law, and you would not BELIEVE how ill-equipped for the real world she is! This is in part because she's been treated like a "precious little snowflake", and it really, really worries me as she gets older. Should 6-year olds be preparing for sexual relations? No. But they should know about families, and communities and how to treat others. That's all part of comprehensive sex ed; not teaching them how to give BJ's, but teaching them that it takes all kids to make up a world.

With regards to the argument that abstinence worked in the 50s and 60s, I'd like to point out the following:

1. If you got pregnant then, your choices were to disappear for a few months and give your baby to strangers, never seeing him/her again, or getting married to the schmuck who knocked you up. If you could find him.

2. If you got married, and had kids, YOU raised them. YOU paid for them, maybe with some help from your family. There were no food stamps, government aid, welfare, whatever. I'm ALL for that.

Frankly, it's not teaching abstinence or birth control that's the problem here. It's not teaching kids that in the end, THEY are responsible for their mistakes, and no one else is going to help them "fix" it.

If you HAD to get married or give your baby away, then YEAH, you're going to be a heck of a lot more careful about having sex. That goes for both men AND women. If you could still beat the hell out of the kid that knocked your daughter up, then YEAH, that kid would be more careful. If you had to drop out of school, and give up the rest of your life to work in blue collar factory because you had to feed your wife and kid somehow--well, of COURSE you're not going to have sex until you're ready for that.

It's not protection, or morals, or abstinence, or whatever. It's the fact that every 15 year old out there knows her parents can't make her do anything, and every guy out there knows he won't have to marry the girl if he knocks her up. It's the fact that being a single parent doesn't mean you'll ALWAYS be a single parent anymore--it used to make you a whore to be raising a child without having married.

So, by all means--let's go back to teenage weddings, get rid of welfare, and find babies for all of those "desperate, loving couples who LONG to hold a baby in their arms and call it their own".

I don't seehow that is helping anyone.. but okay..

I'd rather just have a person take responsibility for their own actions AND have choices with how to deal with it.

People say oh, abortion is just the easy way out, well no, it's less inconvenient in the long run, but you don't see women standing in line with lollypops and balloons at the abortion clinic. For some women they made a mistake, which can happen to anyone, and this is how they feel is best for them to deal with it.

I don't think that necessarily waiting until marriage is a great idea either 'cause I'd rather know what I'm getting into sexually, whether I'm going to be compatible or not, and even responsible people who use BC and Condoms can have an accident.

Sorry... I thought my tongue-in-cheekness was more obvious than it apparently was.

I'm a HUGE advocate of choice. Look at any of my previous arguments in other threads.

I just don't think that any ONE solution is going to work. Personal responsibility will--but how do you teach that when there are virtually no consequences, no unbearable hardships?

Oh, I see, I was like, are you serious? XD

That abortion, having the baby, giving it up for adoption, all of them are forever and they're all hard. The problem is that we need to help people learn to not let it get to that point. Everyone should beable to get protection, that's the responsible thing to do. Unfortunately. Everything in life almost is a responsibility and unfortuntely people are too closed-minded to let people live their lives how they live, or too stupid to deal with their own lives. What we need is a medium.

Has anyone looked at the potential side effects of oral contraceptives
For example
Ortho-Novum side effects (Norethindrone and Ethinyl Estradiol) and drug interactions - prescription drugs and medications at RxList
Thrombophlebitis
Arterial thromboembolism
Pulmonary embolism
Myocardial infarction
Cerebral hemorrhage
Cerebral thrombosis
Hypertension
Gallbladder disease
Hepatic adenomas, carcinomas or benign liver tumors



This is a medical issue, not a school issue. Therefore it requires parental consent.
--------------------------

Does anyone have children on asthma inhalers, isulin, or adhd medications?

You know the paper work and all the permission slips needed to give these medications.

Why even the thought of a prescription medicine without parental consent? i.e.. "confidential"



I remember it the mid eighties when airbags were mandated. They made intuitive sense.
A couple of years later small people [ women and children primarily ] were being killed or maimed by them. Now we have the warnings.

Why? The kids can go to the health department and get them without parental consent. If a person is old enough to be aving sex they need to be able to take responsibility for it themselves. Their parents may deny them the contraceptives because they don't what then to have sex so they will continue unsafe practices anyway.

I agree. BC isn't for little girls, and maybe not something that should be in the school, but a girl when she's old enough NEEDS to be able to have access to it if she wants.

Condoms on the other hand should be easily available.

This is a medical issue, not a school issue. Therefore it requires parental consent.It seems we have all agreed on that.

And tell me speechless, are you a man or a woman?

And the relevance of that question is what exactly?

Not me, they'll be broke and miserable for their whole lives, the baby will not be treated the same way as if it is wanted, it may even be abused or have to go without because the parents can't provide because their lives were messed up by an unplanned pregnancy.

I believe that just may be the mother of all assumptions, and I darn sure value human life more than to destroy it on such an assumption.


The mother is also more liable to have complcations or even death during delivery because her body is not ready to give birth. I think that a viable and very much alive girl's life is more precious than a "non-viable tissue mass". Lesser of two evils I supposd.

Wow, talk about fear factor. According to the CDC:


The risk of death from complications of pregnancy has decreased approximately 99% during the twentieth century, from approximately 850 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1900 to 7.5 in 1982. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5202a1.htm)

If the abortion rights crowd is correct in that teens under 16 are "5 times more likely" to die during childbirth, that puts their chances of dying from complications at .0375 percent if my math is correct. The child's odds of dying from an abortion are pretty much 100 percent.


Most (almost all) abortions are performed before 20 weeks, across the board, statistics state that.

The fetus at 20 weeks (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/develop/week20.shtm), courtesy of the Texas State Dept of Health:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/20-weeks.jpg


According to the journal of american medicine, if the fetus can feel pain at all, it doesn't feel pain until at least 28 weeks.

The fetus at 28 weeks (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/develop/week28.shtm), courtesy of the Texas State Dept of Health:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/28-weeks.jpg


The fetus is not typically even able to survive outside the womb (meaning its organs are not present or not functioning) until around 23 weeks.

The fetus at 22 weeks (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/develop/week22.shtm), courtesy of the Texas State Dept of Health:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/22-weeks.jpg

The fetus at 24 weeks (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/develop/week24.shtm), courtesy of the Texas State Dept of Health:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/24-weeks.jpg


Either way, it's a personal choice...

It seems clear to me from these images from the weeks you mentioned it is a child.


and you have no right to say people shouldn't get an abortion because of your morals and values because they may not share your morals and values. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. Simple as that. Don't try to say that people shouldn't have a choice because YOU think it's wrong.

First of all Charlotte I have every right to express my opinion just as you do, so let's dispense with the "you have no right to say" nonsense. It's just a discussion, I'm not imposing my values on anyone. But, this discussion on birth control in schools has been largely about education and facts, and I'm backing my post up with the facts. Whether you buy into the justification for aborting a 20 week old fetus or that it may or may not feel pain until week 28 is your business. I see the fingers and toes of a child.

Speechless, I's rather see a non-viable tissue mass sucked out of their womb than a teenager having a baby she's not ready for and tossing it in a trash can or leaving it on the bathroom floor of a public restroom, these things happen everyday, or don't you watch the news?

Alt, I watch the news every day, read the paper every day, get glimpses of the news on the internet every day... I cannot recall the last time I heard or read a story about some teenager "tossing it in a trash can or leaving it on the bathroom floor of a public restroom." Can you point those out for me please?


Besides, the issue here isn't about abortion it's about contraception and even though accidents do happen even when you're careful there are definitely tons of options out there that prevent pregnancy and it's not in anyone's best interest not to discuss these options with our kids.

Just so you'll know, the first mention of abortion on this post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/contraception-schools-159378-4.html#post766828) was by charlotte234s. I just followed where the discussion went. :D


You have a right to your opinion as does everyone else in the world. If you don't want your kids using contraception then don't tell them about it, you can deal with a teenage unwed mother when it happens.

Thanks for allowing me to express my opinion. That's part of what makes this a great country, the right to object to insane, intrusive and subversive policies. Just so you know, I have no kids at home and but I do speak from experience (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/forget-hillary-care-what-about-school-based-health-care-142147-post673979.html&highlight=daughter+aids+planned+parenthood#post673 979) concerning the kind of "education," "help" and "health care" that PP gives and demands for our children.


I'm the mother of two and even though they're both too young to worry about sex and pregnancy I will expose them to contraceptives when the time comes and hope that I've ingrained in them the fact that I am open to hearing anything they have to say and will always listen with an open mind and heart. But there is absolutely no reason that teens should be having children when there are ways to prevent it and short of locking them up in a monastery you are not going to prevent these teens from having sex. Wake up and smell the coffee.

I speak from my experience as what I see as not only PP failing my daughter but my own failures to my daughter. I know our kids will do what they're going to do and I know we need to do our best to educate them, foster good decision making skills and I know we can't lock them up. But I also know there has to be a better way than surrendering our children to "they're going to do it anyway," subjecting them to the kind of "education" and "health care" that PP has in mind - and ceding the right of parents to make those determinations for the children in their care.

It's not protection, or morals, or abstinence, or whatever. It's the fact that every 15 year old out there knows her parents can't make her do anything, and every guy out there knows he won't have to marry the girl if he knocks her up. It's the fact that being a single parent doesn't mean you'll ALWAYS be a single parent anymore--it used to make you a whore to be raising a child without having married.

It's not even 15 year olds, I think every 10 or 12 year old knows their parents can't make them do anything. That's the result of the "children's rights" movement. You can't even take your child to the pediatrician any more without being under suspicion (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/08/is-your-pediatrician-using-your-kid-to-spy-on-you/).

Condoms are readily available, and I agree BC isn't for little girls and should not be in schools but what is "old enough?"

Actually, MOST abortions are performed before 12 weeks

Between 1996 and 2002, the number of abortions in the U.S. fell from 1.36 million to 1.29 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003; Guttmacher Institute, 2006). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88.2 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2006).

Not that this thread is about abortion, nor is it likely to make speech or anyone else switch to the pro-choice side, but let's at least be clear on the facts.

Also, women who abort after the first trimester tend to do so because of medical concerns, not because the baby is "inconvenient"

In a recent survey of U.S. women choosing to terminate their pregnancies, significantly more women in their second trimester cited fetal health concerns than women in their first trimester. The fetal health concerns they cited included the risk of fetal anomaly due to advanced maternal age, a history of miscarriage, a lack of prenatal care, and fetal exposure to prescription medications and non-prescription substances (Finer et al., 2005).

Conditions in which the woman's health is threatened or aggravated by continuing her pregnancy include
certain types of infections
heart failure
malignant hypertension, including preeclampsia
out-of-control diabetes
serious renal disease
severe depression
suicidal tendencies

Actually, MOST abortions are performed before 12 weeks

Between 1996 and 2002, the number of abortions in the U.S. fell from 1.36 million to 1.29 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003; Guttmacher Institute, 2006). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88.2 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2006).

Not that this thread is about abortion, nor is it likely to make speech or anyone else switch to the pro-choice side, but let's at least be clear on the facts.

I'm all for the facts, I don't think they're "useless" as someone else said. But no, there are no facts that will convince me that what's inside the womb is not human life. It clearly is. Look, I don't hold the position that "abortion is never necessary," I think the data on that is probably mixed. I'm sure the decision can be excruciatingly difficult, but it would be less difficult if the abortion crowd and the medical community had not devalued human life to the point that a growing fetus is merely a "non-viable tissue mass" and positioned abortion as a "solution" to irresponsible behavior.

To me that just about sums it up, the advocates of BC in schools and comprehensive sex education have for decades encouraged and enabled that irresponsible behavior over encouraging kids to keep their pants on until they are mature enough to handle it. It hasn't worked, and that is a large reason why schools are now considering this radical step of furnishing BC to teens. You don't feed their desires and expect the situation to improve - very few horny 16 year old boys are going to care if they forgot to pack a condom when that cute little thang offers him sex.

I'm all for the facts, I don't think they're "useless" as someone else said. But no, there are no facts that will convince me that what's inside the womb is not human life. It clearly is. Look, I don't hold the position that "abortion is never necessary," I think the data on that is probably mixed. I'm sure the decision can be excruciatingly difficult, but it would be less difficult if the abortion crowd and the medical community had not devalued human life to the point that a growing fetus is merely a "non-viable tissue mass" and positioned abortion as a "solution" to irresponsible behavior.

To me that just about sums it up, the advocates of BC in schools and comprehensive sex education have for decades encouraged and enabled that irresponsible behavior over encouraging kids to keep their pants on until they are mature enough to handle it. It hasn't worked, and that is a large reason why schools are now considering this radical step of furnishing BC to teens. You don't feed their desires and expect the situation to improve - very few horny 16 year old boys are going to care if they forgot to pack a condom when that cute little thang offers him sex.

I didn't expect it to change your mind, nor did I expect you to object to using facts. :)

I agree with you to a point that many in the abortion crowd and medical community have a way of passing abortion off as a simple solution with no emotional repercussions. That simply isn't true, and if someone decides to have unprotected sex because "I can just get an abortion if I get pregnant" that's INCREDIBLY dangerous thinking. I would, however, like to point out there is a big difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion (at least I think there is). Pro-abortion people advocate it, think there's nothing wrong with it, and see it as a easy fix. Pro-choice people support a woman's right to choose, but recognize it's NOT an easy fix and that there are emotional and psychological strains that come with making such a decision.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree with regards to comprehensive sex ed. I honestly think if we started exposing kids to learning about relationships, respect for themselves, alternative activities and so on from a young age and later turn that into biological facts and sexual facts there could be a decrease in teen sex. As I said before, I don't think we need to be teaching 6-year olds how to have oral sex, but to me, comprehensive doesn't mean that; it means talking and learning about all aspects of relationships and socialization.

Does anyone know the legal age for medical informed consent in the US? At what age can a person make their own medical decisions without having to tell their parents? I THINK it is 16, but I could be wrong. If it is, it's quite a loophole the clinics at these middle schools have used to administer the pill (get a blanket consent form for everything). I did see an article however, that the school in Maine requires girls have a physical exam from the clinic doctors and receive counseling services prior to being put on the pill. So it's not like the school nurse is handing the pill out like candy, which makes me feel a little better. Only a little. The same article said that of the girls who went to the clinic (about 160) only five admitted to being sexually active, and all were 14 or 15. Again, it makes me feel a little better that this school doesn't have a rash of sexually active 11 year olds. Still, only a little better though.

"I honestly think if we started exposing kids to learning about relationships, respect for themselves, alternative activities and so on from a young age and later turn that into biological facts and sexual facts there could be a decrease in teen sex."

Absolutely

Teach self respect and respect for the other person in a relationship before...

I didn't expect it to change your mind, nor did I expect you to object to using facts. :)

Nah, I didn't expect that you expected you would expect me to change my mind. How's that for mangled grammar? :D

As to the rest of your last post let me first say I've enjoyed discussing this with you, hope you don't mind some of my sarcasm. But anyway, yes there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion but I think the main "pro-choice" advocacy groups have been less than honest - I would say devious.

In this day nobody wants to appear "pro-abortion," it isn't a winning position to champion what many see as the murder of a child. So what they've done is changed their terminology, it's ever evolving. "Safe sex" is now "safer sex." Pro-abortion is now "pro-choice." "Anti-abortion" is "anti-choice," "pro-lifers" are becoming "forced pregnancy activists," while "pro-choice" has become "reproductive freedom." Well, one has the "reproductive freedom" to abstain from sex thus avoiding "unforced pregnancy" and the need to "choose" "reproductive health care." They make it all sound so liberating...

Nah, I didn't expect that you expected you would expect me to change my mind. How's that for mangled grammar? :D

Actually, I think you got it right! :)


As to the rest of your last post let me first say I've enjoyed discussing this with you, hope you don't mind some of my sarcasm. But anyway, yes there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion but I think the main "pro-choice" advocacy groups have been less than honest - I would say devious.

In this day nobody wants to appear "pro-abortion," it isn't a winning position to champion what many see as the murder of a child. So what they've done is changed their terminology, it's ever evolving. "Safe sex" is now "safer sex." Pro-abortion is now "pro-choice." "Anti-abortion" is "anti-choice," "pro-lifers" are becoming "forced pregnancy activists," while "pro-choice" has become "reproductive freedom." Well, one has the "reproductive freedom" to abstain from sex thus avoiding "unforced pregnancy" and the need to "choose" "reproductive health care." They make it all sound so liberating...

Bah! I never mind sarcasm! In fact, it drives me nuts when I try to discuss things with people who don't GET it...

I think we can both agree there are extremists on both sides of the fence (like oh so many other things... ). There are the pro-lifers who assault or murder doctors, or assault women who are going into a clinic. There are pro-choicers who take a cavalier attitude to abortion, and certainly those who lie to women about the developmental phase the fetus is in (though I've seen pro-lifers exaggerate this as well). There's a documentary you should check out; Unborn in the USA: Inside the War on Abortion (2007) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1059238/) about the pro-life movement. I thought it was pretty unbiased, but some of the participants felt otherwise after some reviews came out (which you can read if you Google the title). It was insightful for me, and really made me look at abortion in a different way (didn't change me mind, but made me realize more what a really difficult decision it is). Basically it follows some key people in the pro-life movement and documents their activities, thoughts, etc. To some it shows the lunacy in what they do, but to others it shows WHY they use the methods they do.

BOTH sides have instances where they've been less than honest, which is what is such a shame. This goes for BC as well; where can you go to get information that is unbiased and honest? Where someone doesn't have an agenda? Though I agree with the mission of PP, I do question the motives of some individuals who work there, because let's face it, it's a sensitive issue. And that's where you get into trouble - the face people of your organization don't honor your mission, and it gives the whole company a bad name.

As far as the terminology... it's all PR spin, from both sides. I think there are some people on each side who really care about the women involved, and others who are just in it to "win". Again, that applies to so, so many other things as well!

I think we can both agree there are extremists on both sides of the fence (like oh so many other things....). There are the pro-lifers who assault or murder doctors, or assault women who are going into a clinic. There are pro-choicers who take a cavalier attitude to abortion, and certainly those who lie to women about the developmental phase the fetus is in (though I've seen pro-lifers exaggerate this as well).

I would hope you can tell by now I don't care for extremists on either side (although I'm sure some here think I'm the extremist, lol). That's part of the problem though, there seems to be no room for rational debate. And I had much more to say but decided to just leave it at that :)

It's all spin-on BOTH sides.

"Pro-choice" is now "murdering babies". Adoption is "better than killing your baby". People getting abortions are always made out to be ignorant murderers who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves, rather than scared young women who made a very hard choice when their birth control failed.

(Just wanted to throw the other side out there)

I don't believe that ANYONE but a parent should decide what sort of medical treatment a minor child should get.

But... at the same time... there are parents out there who are NOT available to their children. Where should THEY go? We've been telling kids for years that if they can't talk to their parents about something, they should go to their teacher, their counselor, their pastor/priest when they need help.

Well, unfortunately, talking about sex with a teen can get those people into trouble, too--all it takes is one person taking the wrong spin on it, and all of a sudden there are child abuse and pedophilia charges--who'd want to take the chance?

IMO--start educating parents. Make THEM take a sex ed course when their kids reach 12-13 years old. If the PARENT doesn't show up for the class, then the kid goes to a comprehensive sex ed class, covering every subject under the sexual sun. Have several dates available--but put it on the PARENT'S shoulders to teach their kids so that we can stop playing the blame game about the whole thing.

I agree J_9.

And I believe scientific facts over pictures that may or may not even be properly labele,d they could be a fetus much older made to be a 20 week fetus by the anti-abortion fleet.

18-Year-Old Hides Pregnancy, Then Allegedly Throws Newborn Down Trash Chute in Florida While on Vacation - Associated Content (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/273339/18yearold_hides_pregnancy_then_allegedly.html)

Here's a story about a girl who threw her newborn down a trash chute.

WZTV FOX 17/Nashville (http://www.fox17.com/newsroom/top_stories/vid_214.shtml)

Here's the same basic story except it's a Nashville girl. I could find probably a ton more if you'd like.


And you don't have a right to tell people what to do, no one forces you to have an abortion, why do you want to tell people they can't? It's just not anyone's place to tell other people what they can and can't do with their lives.

And for one, I have an aunt who chose not to have an abortion and her and her son lived in squalor for years afterwards, she did not even have the money to pay for repairing his severely cleft lip, so I know that young, uneducated, scared, poor, single mothers will be more miserable and broke if they are forced to have a child. She lived with her parents who FORCED her to have the baby, after they told her that birth control was for sluts just a year before. She was 17.

I'd rather see a teenager with a condom in their pocket that a baby in their arms.

It doesn't do any good in their POCKET.

And wouldn't you prefer it if they didn't need that condom in the first place?

Elliot

And wouldn't you prefer it if they didn't need that condom in the first place?

Sure but I'm a realist.

It doesn't do any good in their POCKET.

And wouldn't you prefer it if they didn't need that condom in the first place?

Elliot


The original question was asking about contraceptives in schools, saying that I'd rather see a condom in their pocket implied that I agree to allowing children access to contraception. Of course they can't leave it in their pocket if it's to work, that's rather obvious (or so I thought). So to make it very clear "I would rather they put a condom on their penis (or their partners penis) before sexual contact and ejaculation." Is that accurate enough?

As to your other question, yes, I would rather they didn't need a condom in the first place, but I'd rather they be prepared than end up with an unwanted pregnancy. It would be a wonderful world indeed if teenagers actually listened to their parents and waited to have sex, but they don't, they never have, I know I didn't, did you?

Sorry if I sound condescending but I feel very strongly about this issue as do all of you. I have a feeling that we're all just going to have to agree to disagree and raise our children according to our beliefs and hope for the best. I'm just trying to be realistic about this issue.

Here's a twist on things.

For all those who believe that teens are old enough (physically and emotionally) to make decisions about sex, and therefore should be able to get condoms, BC and abortions at will without parental consent... would you guys have a problem with a 14 year old girl having sex with a 35 year old guy?

If you have a problem with it, why? After all, they're old enough to decide for themselves without parental concent. What's the difference between a 14 year old having sex with another teenager and having sex with an adult? If they are old enough to decide, then they are old enough to decide.

And if you don't have a problem with it, why not? Do you feel that teens having sex with adults is okay? Do you feel that there's no such thing as statutory rape?

You see, the issue here is whether these kids have the capacity to make these life-and-death decisions without the consent of a parent. Either they do or they don't. You can't have it both ways. If they are mature enough to make decisions on abortion, BC, condoms and having sex with other teens, then they are mature enough to make those decisions vis-à-vis adults as well. In that case, we need to stop prosecuting adults for statutory rape in cases of consenting sex with a minor.

But if you feel that teens are not mature enough to make those decisions regarding sex with adults, then why do we assume that because they are having sex with other teens its different and they are mature enough for that? To me, there doesn't seem to be any real difference. The decision-making process is the same, and if they are too immature for one, then they should be too immature for the other.

And if they are not mature enough, then PP should not be advocating abortions (a medical procedure) without parental consent, and schools should not be pushing condoms and BC (medication) without parental permission. And schools should not be teaching kids how to have sex... safely or otherwise. They should be teaching kids NOT to have sex.

Seems simple to me.

Elliot

And I believe scientific facts over pictures that may or may not even be properly labele,d they could be a fetus much older made to be a 20 week fetus by the anti-abortion fleet.

Did I not mention where those pictures were from? That's right I did, the Texas State Department of Health... precisely to preempt the improperly labeled photos from "the anti-abortion fleet" argument. Why on earth would the State of Texas use improperly labeled pictures? State of Texas not good enough?

10 weeks courtesy of National Geographic:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inthewomboriginal/images/inthewomb4.jpg

14 weeks courtesy The Science Museum in London:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/lifecycle/images/1-2-3-1-8-0-0-0-0-0-0.jpg

24 weeks courtesy of the University of California, San Francisco:
http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/IDS_101_embryology_basics/images/24_week_fetus.jpg

Will those sources do?


18-Year-Old Hides Pregnancy, Then Allegedly Throws Newborn Down Trash Chute in Florida While on Vacation - Associated Content (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/273339/18yearold_hides_pregnancy_then_allegedly.html)

Here's a story about a girl who threw her newborn down a trash chute.

WZTV FOX 17/Nashville (http://www.fox17.com/newsroom/top_stories/vid_214.shtml)

Here's the same basic story except it's a Nashville girl. I could find probably a ton more if you'd like.

An example from June and one from October is a long way from the claim that I should see it in the news happening "every day."


And you don't have a right to tell people what to do, no one forces you to have an abortion, why do you want to tell people they can't? It's just not anyone's place to tell other people what they can and can't do with their lives.

Haven't we been here before? I said "I have every right to express my opinion just as you do," I don't recall telling anyone they can't have an abortion. I don't recall even asking for a ban on abortions. I'd appreciate it very much if you would point out where I am telling people what they can or can't do, where I'm forcing my will on anyone. If you can find it I'll apologize, otherwise I think it would be appropriate to stop painting that false impression of me. This is only a discussion.


And for one, I have an aunt who chose not to have an abortion and her and her son lived in squalor for years afterwards, she did not even have the money to pay for repairing his severely cleft lip, so I know that young, uneducated, scared, poor, single mothers will be more miserable and broke if they are forced to have a child. She lived with her parents who FORCED her to have the baby, after they told her that birth control was for sluts just a year before. She was 17.

I'm sorry for your aunt and her son's years of squalor, how are they doing now? Does she love her son? Do you love your cousin? Does she regret his life? Should she tell him he should have been aborted, that he didn't deserve a chance to live, laugh, love and be loved?

How does that one example mean you "know that young, uneducated, scared, poor, single mothers will be more miserable and broke if they are forced to have a child?" If my daughter had only come to us and allowed us to help her through her pregnancy I guarantee we would have done everything in our power to make sure they both had anything they needed. I've sat and mourned with friends devastated by the decision to have an abortion 20 years after the fact. I've watched a loving, childless couple struggle, jump through all the hoops and spend a fortune to adopt a child only to be disappointed by the court when it gave him back to his drug addicted mother - and I've been with them through the joy of finally holding an adopted newborn of their own thanks to a courageous teen mother that gave this child a chance.

To condemn a child on the assumption of a miserable and broke life is surrender. It shows an astounding lack of faith in people to rise above circumstances and turn a potentially difficult situation into a triumphant victory. Such cynicism is really sad.

Great point Elliot. How do most states deal with any male having sex with an underaged girl ?

[QUOTE=speechlesstx]Alt, I watch the news every day, read the paper every day, get glimpses of the news on the internet every day... I cannot recall the last time I heard or read a story about some teenager "tossing it in a trash can or leaving it on the bathroom floor of a public restroom." Can you point those out for me please?


Watch Nancy Grace, at least once a week there are newborns being left for dead by teenage mothers that just weren't ready for motherhood. The last one was a girl that was heavily into sports, she left the baby in a trash can in her school, she was arrested for killing her infant. Before that there was a newborn found in the public bathroom of a hospital, that baby was lucky, it lived. The mother disappeared, she left a note with her infant saying that she fed the baby. I could write a book about the number of teenagers that end up committing this desperate act. Most of them hide their pregnancies from their families and friends by binding their growing bellies. I realize that this is the extreme end of teenage pregnancies, but it happens often enough that it should be a very big concern.

I myself would never get an abortion, it's something that I cannot do because to me it's a baby as soon as I find out I'm pregnant (I have two children). But that doesn't mean that you should take that choice away from someone else. I was 27 years old when I had my first child, married for 3 years, financially stable etc. etc. If I had been 17 years old or even younger it would have been very difficult. Try and put yourself in the shoes of these young girls, maybe you'll see a different side of this issue.:)

great point Elliot. How do most states deal with any male having sex with an underaged girl ?And what does that have to do with contraception in schools? Are you implying that if contraception were not available in schools then we would have no incidences of underage girls having sex with older men?

And what does that have to do with contraception in schools? Are you implying that if contraception were not available in schools then we would have no incidences of underage girls having sex with older men?

Read my post #87.

My point is that if a child has the wherewithal to make decisions about sex vis-à-vis condoms, BC and abortions, then that same child should be able to make decisions about sex with adults. In which case there is no such thing as statutory rape.

But if a child does not have the capacity to make decisions about sex with adults, then why do we say that they have the capacity to make decisions about sex with teens, abortions, condoms and birth control.

You can't have it both ways. Either they are able to decide, or they are not. Which is it?

If they are able to decide, then we can expect to see adults having consentual sex with kids without prosecuting the adults for statutory rape. And if they are unable to decide, then schools and PP have no right to be giving these kids abortions and condoms and birth control pills without parental consent.

Which way do you go, NK?

THAT is my point.

Elliot

Sorry mate, those incidences of underage girls having sex with older men is not a situation cured by the teachings of abstinence or by the teachings of contraception (although if they know about conttraception then pregnancy and STD rates for those girls would be lower). Those girls obviously have absent parenting and would have done what they did regardless of what they are being taught in school. People need to take responsibility for their kids and stop making the school liable for everything.

Elliot, do you talk to your kids? Do you know their friends and what they do online?

Here's a twist on things.

For all those who believe that teens are old enough (physically and emotionally) to make decisions about sex, and therefore should be able to get condoms, BC and abortions at will without parental consent... would you guys have a problem with a 14 year old girl having sex with a 35 year old guy?

If you have a problem with it, why? After all, they're old enough to decide for themselves without parental concent. What's the difference between a 14 year old having sex with another teenager and having sex with an adult? If they are old enough to decide, then they are old enough to decide.

And if you don't have a problem with it, why not? Do you feel that teens having sex with adults is okay? Do you feel that there's no such thing as statutory rape?

You see, the issue here is whether these kids have the capacity to make these life-and-death decisions without the consent of a parent. Either they do or they don't. You can't have it both ways. If they are mature enough to make decisions on abortion, BC, condoms and having sex with other teens, then they are mature enough to make those decisions vis-a-vis adults as well. In that case, we need to stop prosecuting adults for statutory rape in cases of consenting sex with a minor.

But if you feel that teens are not mature enough to make those decisions regarding sex with adults, then why do we assume that because they are having sex with other teens its different and they are mature enough for that? To me, there doesn't seem to be any real difference. The decision-making process is the same, and if they are too immature for one, then they should be too immature for the other.

And if they are not mature enough, then PP should not be advocating abortions (a medical procedure) without parental consent, and schools should not be pushing condoms and BC (medication) without parental permission. And schools should not be teaching kids how to have sex... safely or otherwise. They should be teaching kids NOT to have sex.

Seems simple to me.

Elliot

Wow, that's a twisted view of things. I live in Canada, the age here for sexual consent is 16 years old, I don't know what it is were you live. No I don't believe that teens should be having sex with 35 year old pedophiles (because that's what they are) and yes I believe that those "adults" should be prosecuted for statutory rape. Teenagers aren't adults, when it comes to sex, drugs etc. they are very naïve and should be told all the risks involved i.e. pregnancy, std's etc." I believe in sex ed, not to teach them how to have sex but to teach them about sex, especially safe sex (although there is no such thing).

I find this debate very interesting, you seem to think that I want teenagers to have sex, I don't. What I am trying to say is that short of locking them in a convent or putting on a chastity belt we can't stop them from doing this. You can talk to them about being abstinent until you're blue in the face, but you can't be with them 24/7 and stuff happens. Teens are notorious for acting before thinking, it's part of being a teen. We all learned lessons from mistakes we made as teens, do you want the lesson to be parenthood or worse, aids, because you were unwilling to talk to your kids about contraception. Keeping the lines of communication open with your teens is very important. Tell them about contraception but also tell them that waiting until they're ready is the way to go.

I hope all this makes sense, I'm typing extremely fast trying to get all of my thoughts out. Having said that I'd like to remind everyone that this is a very touchy subject (obviously) and that we all have very different opinions on this subject. Everyone has valid points but it's hard to see someone else's point of view when you feel so passionately about a subject. Please keep that in mind, because I realize that I've been and am continuing to be (for lack of a better term) snarky with some of you. I do feel passionately about this issue, and even though I may not sound like it I do respect and value all of your opinions, please try to respect mine too.

And if they are not mature enough, then PP should not be advocating abortions (a medical procedure) without parental consent, and schools should not be pushing condoms and BC (medication) without parental permission. And schools should not be teaching kids how to have sex... safely or otherwise. They should be teaching kids NOT to have sex.

Some good points there, ETW.

I asked earlier and I think my questions got lost in the mix - does anyone know the legal age for informed medical consent in the US? The information I got in a quick web search was unclear. I THINK it's 16, and if it is, PP providing abortions without parental consent is part of the law (to individuals over 16, that is) and if someone doesn't agree with that, they should fight the LAW, not PP. Do they provide abortions to individuals under 16 without consent? I'm not sure, but if they are, and it violates the law, well, something should be done about that.

ETW, regarding condoms being available in schools; you said the schools should not be pushing condoms without parental permission - does this mean you think condoms should only be sold to those over 18 (or 16, or whatever)? I'm just trying to clarify, honestly. Because if they can be sold to anyone of any age, what's the difference if they get them at school, from PP, the grocery store, 7-11, or the gas station bathroom? I agree that the pill should not be handed out without parental consent, but this clinic got around that by having parents sign a blanket consent form, so technically, they have consent. As underhanded and loop-holish (is that a word?) as that is, they do have consent. That must be how they've gotten around the legality of it all...

Seems simple to me.

Seems simple to me, too Elliot... even obvious.

I find this debate very interesting, you seem to think that I want teenagers to have sex, I don't. What I am trying to say is that short of locking them in a convent or putting on a chastity belt we can't stop them from doing this. You can talk to them about being abstinent until you're blue in the face, but you can't be with them 24/7 and stuff happens. Teens are notorious for acting before thinking, it's part of being a teen. We all learned lessons from mistakes we made as teens, do you want the lesson to be parenthood or worse, aids, because you were unwilling to talk to your kids about contraception. Keeping the lines of communication open with your teens is very important. Tell them about contraception but also tell them that waiting until they're ready is the way to go.

I think we all agree teens are bound to make poor decisions and we can't lock them up to protect them from themselves, and that parents need to involved in their kids' lives. What I disagree with is the expanding role of the state as the parent - the erosion of parental rights.

On that note, Planned parenthood is the main proponent of sex education in schools and they will not tolerate any that does not follow their ideology. PP is a chief advocate of child rights, i.e. bypassing parental authority and values on issues such as BC, abortion and sex education. In essence, they don't think parents should have a say if their minor child wants to have sex, get BC or have an abortion, and if anyone - pro-life, pro-choice, pro-sex ed or not - cares about having a say in raising their children they should be appalled at the power grabs taking place. If anything this should be a bipartisan effort to make sure parents are still the parents and that kids can just be kids again.


Please keep that in mind, because I realize that I've been and am continuing to be (for lack of a better term) snarky with some of you. I do feel passionately about this issue, and even though I may not sound like it I do respect and value all of your opinions, please try to respect mine too.

Duly noted and appreciated. And, I like to get a little snarky, too :)

NK,


Sorry mate, those incidences of underage girls having sex with older men is not a situation cured by the teachings of abstinence or by the teachings of contraception (although if they know about conttraception then pregnancy and STD rates for those girls would be lower). Those girls obviously have absent parenting and would have done what they did regardless of what they are being taught in school. People need to take responsibility for their kids and stop making the school liable for everything.

AHHHH, so now we are getting to the real cause of the problem... parental absenteeism. Parents not teaching their kids not to have sex. We are in agreement on this point.

So, do you think we should solve this point by making schools and PP more responsible, or by making the parents live up to their responsibilities?

And again, the point is not about kids having sex with adults, NK. The point is about whether kids have the capacity to DECIDE.


Elliot, do you talk to your kids? Do you know their friends and what they do online?

My kids are 7 and 5, so it's really a moot point right now. But yes, I know what my kids are doing, who they do it with, and where they are. And I intend to continue that trend until they are adults capable of making their own decisions. We also don't have cable TV in the house, and only my wife's computer has internet access, and that is monitored by her.

Furthermore, because all the kids my children are in school (Yeshiva) with have the same religious/moral values, and because those religious values are stressed in both the home and the school, the incidence of teen sex is minimal, and the incidence of teem pregnancy is virtually nil. I think the last known case of unmarried teen pregnancy in the Orthodox Jewish community took place about 20 years ago, and was the talk of the entire religious Jewish community world-wide. It hasn't happened since. There is a stigma attached to teen sex and teen pregnancy in yeshivas that doesn't exist in most of the rest of American society.

So the fact is that if schools and parents work together to teach a moral value system in which abstinence is the norm, in which pre-marital sex is stigmatized, and in which teen pregnancy is a complete no-no, the result is that kids don't have sex with each other. No condoms or birth control are needed, no abortions are required and there is no fear of STDs. And given the number of kids that Orthodox Jewish families have, you can't say that they are uneducated in sex.

Abstinence training can and does work.

Altenweg


Teenagers aren't adults, when it comes to sex, drugs etc. they are very naïve and should be told all the risks involved i.e. pregnancy, std's etc." I believe in sex ed, not to teach them how to have sex but to teach them about sex, especially safe sex (although there is no such thing).

Exactly. They do not have the capacity to make such decisions. They are babies.

So why are we allowing them to get BC and have abortions without parental concent?

THAT is the entire thrust of my argument, Altenweg.



You can talk to them about being abstinent until you're blue in the face, but you can't be with them 24/7 and stuff happens.


Not where I come from. See above. Stuff doesn't just happen. It only happens if parents don't do their jobs right or expect the school to do their jobs for them. And it would happen a lot less if both the parents and the schools were giving the same message, that kids should not be having sex. Period. No "but ifs", no "here's what to do if..." Just DON'T DO IT.



I hope all this makes sense, I'm typing extremely fast trying to get all of my thoughts out.


That's okay. I'm a speed reader. :cool:



I do feel passionately about this issue, and even though I may not sound like it I do respect and value all of your opinions, please try to respect mine too.


I do respect your opinion, Altenweg. And I must say that you state your opinion very well. I disagree with it, which is why I give my opposing arguments. But I respect it, and your right to have it. I would never say that you don't have the right to that opinion, and I don't think I have intimated such a thing here. If I did, or if something I have said is taken that way, please accept my apology.

Elliot

I asked earlier and I think my questions got lost in the mix - does anyone know the legal age for informed medical consent in the US? The information I got in a quick web search was unclear. I THINK it's 16, and if it is, PP providing abortions without parental consent is part of the law (to individuals over 16, that is) and if someone doesn't agree with that, they should fight the LAW, not PP. Do they provide abortions to individuals under 16 without consent? I'm not sure, but if they are, and it violates the law, well, something should be done about that.

Whether they are now or not is unclear I believe, but they have shown their willingness to do so in the past and they make no bones about fighting for the right to minor abortion without parental consent. There is a PP clinic in Kansas under Grand Jury investigation for over 100 various violations but I'm going to withhold comment on that until it goes through the system.

Loop-holish, I like it. Much better than Webster's newest addition, w00t. And yes, that's how many get by with this type of thing, a blanket consent. If a kid goes in for a snotty nose and gets treated he can then go in and get BC.

Oh, and I imagine state laws vary on consent.

[On that note, Planned parenthood is the main proponent of sex education in schools and they will not tolerate any that does not follow their ideology. PP is a chief advocate of child rights, i.e. bypassing parental authority and values on issues such as BC, abortion and sex education. In essence, they don't think parents should have a say if their minor child wants to have sex, get BC or have an abortion, and if anyone - pro-life, pro-choice, pro-sex ed or not - cares about having a say in raising their children they should be appalled at the power grabs taking place. If anything this should be a bipartisan effort to make sure parents are still the parents and that kids can just be kids again.


Eh, if the parent hadn't failed already, the child wouldn't be bothering to go to PP for BC, Abortion, etc.

Some good points there, ETW.

Thank you.


I asked earlier and I think my questions got lost in the mix - does anyone know the legal age for informed medical consent in the US? The information I got in a quick web search was unclear. I THINK it's 16, and if it is, PP providing abortions without parental consent is part of the law (to individuals over 16, that is) and if someone doesn't agree with that, they should fight the LAW, not PP. Do they provide abortions to individuals under 16 without consent? I'm not sure, but if they are, and it violates the law, well, something should be done about that.

In contract law, informed consent is at 18. A contract signed by a minor below the age of 18 is not binding. (That's why so many parents get away with not paying the huge phone bills to 976 numbers their kids rack up... the parents state that their kids are below 18, and the phone companies know that the kids aren't responsible parties, so they write off these 4 and 5-figure charges.)

I am assuming that the same is true of medical law.


ETW, regarding condoms being available in schools; you said the schools should not be pushing condoms without parental permission - does this mean you think condoms should only be sold to those over 18 (or 16, or whatever)? I'm just trying to clarify, honestly.

Yes. That is what I mean. Schools, drug-stores, and PP should not be handing out condoms to kids below the age of consent without a parent's consent, IMO.


I agree that the pill should not be handed out without parental consent, but this clinic got around that by having parents sign a blanket consent form, so technically, they have consent. As underhanded and loop-holish (is that a word?) as that is, they do have consent. That must be how they've gotten around the legality of it all...

Then it really isn't INFORMED consent of the parents, is it? Signing a form that allows schools to administer to the health of a student in an emergency is VERY different from giving them consent to dispense BC pills to the kids. Parents should know that that is the right they are signing away when they sign that form. And as far as I know, that is not the case. The parents didn't know that they were doing that when they signed these forms.

Elliot

In contract law, informed consent is at 18. A contract signed by a minor below the age of 18 is not binding. (That's why so many parents get away with not paying the huge phone bills to 976 numbers their kids rack up... the parents state that their kids are below 18, and the phone companies know that the kids aren't responsible parties, so they write off these 4 and 5-figure charges.)

I am assuming that the same is true of medical law.

I know that's true of contract law, but I'm not 100% sure if it's the same with medical treatments... For some reason I keep thinking it's 16... but maybe it's LIMITED consent to that age, and full consent at 16? I don't know. speech might also be right, it might vary from state to state. Maybe I'll call my doctor brother, he ought to know! :)



Yes. That is what I mean. Schools, drug-stores, and PP should not be handing out condoms to kids below the age of consent without a parent's consent, IMO.

Thanks for clearing that up. I respectfully disagree with you, but that's OK!


Then it really isn't INFORMED consent of the parents, is it? Signing a form that allows schools to administer to the health of a student in an emergency is VERY different from giving them consent to dispense BC pills to the kids. Parents should know that that is the right they are signing away when they sign that form. And as far as I know, that is not the case. The parents didn't know that they were doing that when they signed these forms.

Elliot

I agree, it's NOT informed consent of the parents, which is why I said it was underhanded. And I think it's not only a problem with the administering of the pill, but also with other drugs - kids that age don't necessarily know what drugs they are allergic to, they don't know the effects medications will have on them, and they may not be mature enough to take the medication properly. A parent should be nearby to inform the doctor of medical concerns which aren't in the patient chart. Hell, as a ADULT I was given penicillin (which I'm allergic to) because when the doc asked what my reaction to it was he didn't think it was bad enough that I shouldn't be taking it. Stupidly (I was 18) I took the prescription instead of insisting otherwise - is a 12 year old going to do the same as me? Probably. Might they have a more severe reaction than me? Possibly.

Does anyone know if this clinic can prescribe psychiatric drugs to the students as well? If so, I think that's a MUCH bigger concern than the pill!

Did anyone read my posts?

Like I said, if the child needs to get BC, Condoms, or an abortion and they can't talk to their parents and they are seeeking it elsewhere, the parents have already failed, I don't see why we should worry about the parents anymore. They let their kid get pregnant or made their kid feel like they couldn't get help from them. It's time to put the kids first.

Eh, if the parent hadn't failed already, the child wouldn't be bothering to go to PP for BC, Abortion, etc.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, and again an egregious assumption on your part.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, and again an egregious assumption on your part.Sorry Tex, I agree with Charlotte. Children from caring loving families who monitor their teens usually don't get knocked up or sneak around to meet a 45 year old guy.

Sorry Tex, I agree with Charlotte. Children from caring loving families who monitor their teens usually don't get knocked up or sneak around to meet a 45 year old guy.

That's all right NK, you can disagree but it still has nothing to do with the point I made. But since that's the point you two seem to want to make I have to disagree also. It may be the case for some teens but not all teens from caring, loving families that monitor their children. Do/have your kids always acted as you expected? I suspect not. I was raised in a loving, caring family that always took time for us and I did a lot of things my parents would be shocked at. The only reason I would have resorted to PP is precisely the opposite of yours and Charlotte's reasoning. It would not be because my parents failed me but because I failed my parents and would have tried to hide my failure from them.

Sorry Tex, I agree with Charlotte. Children from caring loving families who monitor their teens usually don't get knocked up or sneak around to meet a 45 year old guy.

"Usually" is the key word - but it does happen.

In high school, my neighbor, from a strict and close-knit Mormon family got pregnant. She was 17, how many people supervise their 17-year old non-stop?

My mom's neighbor, from a very close-knit Christian family got pregnant at 17, out of wedlock. Pregnant again (from a different dad) at 20, and FINALLY got married and pregnant a third time at 22.

My best friend from high-school, from a close-knit non-religious family, got pregnant because she didn't use protection when she lost her virginity. She knew better, but she did it anyway. She was 18.

I dated a guy who was 22 - I was 16.

Parents play a big role in how their children will grow up and behave, but sometimes you can give every opportunity to a child, and they'll screw up anyway. So I disagree that teens going to PP, et all are there because their parents failed them; they're there because they're teenagers and they do stupid things.

The only reason I would have resorted to PP is precisely the opposite of yours and Charlotte's reasoning. It would not be because my parents failed me but because I failed my parents and would have tried to hide my failure from them.So it matters not then if it's PP or the school nurse or the local women's shelter, you'd still be hopping mad at whatever organization your child went to?

Did anyone read my posts?

Like I said, if the child needs to get BC, Condoms, or an abortion and they can't talk to their parents and they are seeeking it elsewhere, the parents have already failed, I don't see why we sould worry about the parents anymore. They let their kid get pregnant or made their kid feel like they couldn't get help from them. It's time to put the kids first.

Yeah, I read your posts and I think it's a dangerous attitude to have. Should I ever be blessed with raising another child I *!@# sure don't want anyone to have a say so but in their lives but us. Did you read my last post? I know for a fact that if I had gotten a girl pregnant as a teen it was not because my parents failed me but because I failed. You've unfairly indicted a heck of a lot of good parents over choices their children made and given blanket permission for someone else to interfere where they have no business interfering. You're assuming parents are bad and the kids have nowhere else to go. With all due respect that's insane, Charlotte.

And you've assumed that all the pregnant teens go to PP instead of their parents and that's insane as well.

So it matters not then if it's PP or the school nurse or the local women's shelter, you'd still be hopping mad at whatever organization your child went to?

First I would be disappointed in my child for not coming to me, but if they treated, guided, prescribed, counseled my child in any way contrary to our values you're darn right I would be hopping mad. I'm the parent, not them. I raised them, not them. I changed their dirty diapers, wiped their snotty noses, cleaned up their messes, fed them, paid for their upbringing and taught them my values. As long as my child is loved, healthy, and exhibiting no signs of abuse it's none of their %$%@# business. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

Charlotte and NK,

What about cases where the teen THINKS their parents wouldn't understand, but are actually good parents who would help their chidren out one way or the other. I know of quite a few cases where a kid thought that their parents were going to "disown" them or "throw them out of the house" over some misdeed or other, but in reality the parents were VERY supportive. Quite often when a teenager says that he/she is going to be thrown out of the house, it's just typical teen angst talking, not reality. Teens tend to be overly-melodramatic, and they play out worst-case scenarios in their heads.

So... do we take these kids at their words that their parents wouldn't understand, would throw them out, would disown them, and let them get abortions without parental consent, when the reality is more likely to be that parents would be supportive and loving? Do we cut the parents out of the equation based on the kids' say-so, when the kids are very likely wrong about their parents?

And don't tell me it has never happened, because I've seen it happen. Kids very often don't go to their parents because they think that parents wouldn't understand or would hate them for what they have done, and most often they are incorrect in that assumption. Most of us have tried to hide something from our parents because we thought they wouldn't get it. Would our educators have been right to cut our parents out of the equation in those situations?

Elliot

What's the point of doing various low percentage what-if scenarios? We could do this all day by creating scenarios that fits our arguments.

That's the point, NK. It isn't a low-percentage scenario. MOST parents are loving, supportive people who love and care for their children. It's genetically ingraned into humans to be that way. The cases where parents are NOT loving, caring and supportive of their kids is the low-percantage scenario.

Or do you deny that most parents are loving and caring of their children? If so, please supply some sort of data to support that conclusion.

Therefore, if most parents care, if most parents would be supportive of their children even if they got pregnant, then why set us a system designed for the few who do not have supportive parents, and deliberately cut the good parents out of the decision-making loop?

Elliot

I'm saying that if he chil doesn't feel comfortable, then their parent hasn't helped them enough. The parent should sit the chil down and explain to them that f they need anything, even if they think you might get angry or be disappointed or whatever, that you will understand and they should come to YOU. If they don't feel comfortable doing so, then you've nt done your job right.

The problem is that parents should be there and not be letting their kids go get pregnant or have sex without them knowing about it anyway.

And you've assumed that all the pregnant teens go to PP instead of their parents and that's insane as well.

Good grief NK, I have neither said or assumed any such thing. All I did was disagree with the assumption parents have failed because their kid went to PP, you cannot logically come to your conclusion based on that.

What's the point of doing various low percentage what-if scenarios? We could do this all day by creating scenarios that fits our arguments.

Man I have seen more than my share of cynicism today. You think the odds are low that a parent is going to care about, support and otherwise do right by their child? That's where we differ, I trust parents to take care of their children a hell of a lot more than I do PP or the government.

You think the odds are low that a parent is going to care about, support and otherwise do right by their child? That's where we differ, I trust parents to take care of their children a hell of a lot more than I do PP or the government.Holy sh*t, where did I say that? What the hell is wrong with you?? Where did I ever say "the odds are low that a parent is going to care about, support and otherwise do right by their child"? My world revolves around my kids.

NK,

I do respect your opinion, Altenweg. And I must say that you state your opinion very well. I disagree with it, which is why I give my opposing arguments. But I respect it, and your right to have it. I would never say that you don't have the right to that opinion, and I don't think I have intimated such a thing here. If I did, or if something I have said is taken that way, please accept my apology.

Elliot


No apology necessary you also have a right to your opinion. We obviously live in very different places. I went to a catholic school from grade 3 until grade 12, we were taught that abstinence is best. We were briefly informed about condoms but not how to use them or there effectiveness. The year that I was in grade 12 (1988) four girls were pregnant in our school, all of them chose to keep their babies, 1 of them actually turned out to be a wonderful parent, she is still with the father of the child and they have 2 teenagers although one will be 20 next year. The other three girls didn't fair so well, 2 of them had their children taken away and placed in foster homes and the other one ended up leaving her child with her parents and running off. What I'm trying to say is that we all base our opinions on past and present life experiences, it sounds like you live in a place were teen pregnancy is rare, you are very lucky. I live in the suburbs in Canada, we have wonderful neighbors and live in a very safe neighborhood. We have many catholic schools and public schools, both elementary and high school. When I go to the shopping centre I see many teenagers walking around with their pregnant bellies, it makes me sick to think about their future because statistically most of them will not make it and their children will be the ones to suffer. I understand what you are saying about the parents responsibility to inform their children and parent their children, but the friend that I talked about that made it work when she conceived at 17 was from a wonderful Catholic family. They preached abstinence in their home they were very concerned hands on parents, she still got pregnant. My friend and her boyfriend had sex once and she got pregnant, she was shocked because she truly believed that you couldn't get pregnant the first time, she didn't have the information and she paid for it. It's this kind of mis-information or lack of information that scares the bejesus out of me. If you give a kid a gun and don't teach gun safety someone's probably going to get hurt, you can't un-shoot a gun, just like you can't wait until your child is pregnant or has gotten someone pregnant to give them sex ed and talk about taking precautions. Once again this is my opinion, but I do understand were you are coming from and I believe that because of our life experiences and upbringing we have formed very different views on this subject. :)

I'm saying that if he chil doesn't feel comfortable, then their parent hasn't helped them enough. The parent should sit the chil down and explain to them that f they need anything, even if they think you might get angry or be disappointed or whatever, that you will understand and they should come to YOU. If they don't feel comfortable doing so, then you've nt done your job right.

The problem is that parents should be there and not be letting their kids go get pregnant or have sex without them knowing about it anyways.

Again, we get to the crux of the issue. It's the parents' responsibility, not government's, not school's, not planned parenthood's. And yet there are those who wish to take the parents out of the decision making loop, even though the responsibility is theirs.

But again, this doesn't answer my question.

When a kid feels that he's done Something Really Bad, that kid often tries to hide from their parents, even if those parents are loving, caring parents who will do anything to help those kids. They either do it to try to avoid consequences, or they do it out of an unjustified fear of their parents' anger. We've all done that at some point. At least I know that I have. Haven't you ever tried to hide the report card from your parents, or tried to say that your little brother or sister was the one who broke the lamp? We all have done something like that because we were afraid of getting punished. But does that mean that our parents were uncaring, unloving, or willing to throw us out of the house at the first excuse?

So when a kid gets pregnant and says she wants an abortion, but she doesn't want her parents to know about it because she's afraid her parents "will freak", are we to take that as gospel? Are we to assume that the parents really will freak, and that this poor kid is going to be abandoned by her parents? Are we to take the decision out of the parents' hands on the basis of the adolescent fears of the kid, and the wish to not face the consequences for her bad decisions?

Do we assume that any kid who gets into pregnancy trouble comes from a bad family that will mistreat her over this issue and not be supportive of their child? That has not been my experience in parenthood. Nor has it been my second-hand experience in viewing the actions of other parents. The vast majority of parents are responsible, loving, caring people.

By what right do we take the decision... even the KNOWLEDGE of the problem... out of the hands of the parents who DO care about their kids and want to help them? And what makes the adults at school or at planned parenthood any better than the adults at home for helping the kid making these decisions?

Elliot

Holy sh*t, where did I say that? What the hell is wrong with you???? Where did I ever say "the odds are low that a parent is going to care about, support and otherwise do right by their child"? My world revolves around my kids.

"What's the point of doing various low percentage what-if scenarios?"

You used those words to describe my "scenario" of parents who love and care for their children in the prior post. From these words it seems as if you believe that loving families that care for their kids are a "low-percentage what-if scenario".

So that's where you said it, whether you intended that meaning or not.

Elliot

So that's where you said it, whether you intended that meaning or not.

ElliotNice try to cover for your friend but he was trying to paint me as an unloving parent.
The scenario you were playing was the one where the child the parents out and seek counsel elsewhere i.e going to PP and getting bad advice. PP exist because something broke along the way and they are trying to help. It would seem to me that someone in this thread had a bad experience and wants to paint the entire organization as evil. Sorry, I'm not buying it, I haven't heard of the same issues.

P.S. please stop assigning meaning, you often get it wrong.

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger)
Margaret Higgins Sanger (September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, an advocate of negative eugenics, and the founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood


Negative eugenics is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.[6]

Nice try to cover for your friend but he was trying to paint me as an unloving parent.
The scenario you were playing was the one where the child the parents out and seek counsel elsewhere i.e going to PP and getting bad advice. PP exist because something broke along the way and they are trying to help. It would seem to me that someone in this thread had a bad experience and wants to paint the entire organization as evil. Sorry, I'm not buying it, I haven't heard of the same issues.

P.S. please stop assigning meaning, you often get it wrong.

NK, whoa... calm down. Re-read the posts. Elliot spoke of "cases where the teen THINKS their parents wouldn't understand, but are actually good parents who would help their chidren out one way or the other."

Your next post said "What's the point of doing various low percentage what-if scenarios?" To which I responded in general concerning parents. The only thing directed at you personally was the cynicism I perceived in your post. From what little I know about you I have no reason to doubt how much you love your kids, and therefore would not attempt to paint you as an unloving parent... I'm not that kind of guy, NK.

If you would have said you were speaking of PP scenarios when the discussion was on parenting scenarios this confusion could have been avoided. And, I don't think Elliot was covering for me, I believe he saw what I saw.

Steve

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger)
Margaret Higgins Sanger (September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, an advocate of negative eugenics, and the founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood


Negative eugenics is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.[6]

So because an instrumental member of the organization was a loon who supported eugenics it means the whole organization (which started in 1916) is, by association, horrible? Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

No, it's not egregious or an assumption, bad parenting is what causes things like this to happen.


This is why parents should talk to their kids about the tough things, not just candycoat them and hope they go away. If they know how their parents will feel if somethng bad happens, because their parents said, hey we'll love you even if you do drugs or get pregnant or whatever, even tough you shouldn't do those things, then they were parenting well. Otherwise, it's failure on th part of the parents for nottalking to their kids about real issues.

Charlotte, I agree and disagree with you.

I think my parents were GREAT parents. They were always ALWAYS there when we needed them. They talked to us about big issues, and made us go to church every week. Family is BIG where I come from, and family always come first.

I got pregnant at 16, and gave birth at 17.

My sister got pregnant at 17, and gave birth at 18.

My brother has served time for selling and possession of marijuana and crack.

Yet--my parents made SURE they knew where we were, who we were with, met all our friends' parents, etc, etc, etc.

I got pregnant using THREE forms of birth control, the second time I had sex EVER. After dating my boyfriend for almost 3 years, exclusively. I wasn't STUPID.

Oh--and guess what? It was our FRIENDS that covered for us so we could have sex. In a car--when we were supposed to be out with them at Perkins.

So--don't tell me it's PARENTS that always fail.

I have issues with schools dispensing drugs without specific parental consent.

I do NOT, however, believe that contraception should not be available to teens. Frankly--if you take ALL medical decisions away from teenagers, you prevent the right of choice in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. NOBODY should be able to choose for another person what should happen in that case. Forcing someone to abort or give birth is a HORRIBLE idea. 16 is old enough for limited medical decisions to be made--ESPECIALLY decisions involving contraception.

I have to say, though--those of you who preach absolute abstinence can not POSSIBLY have teenagers. My parents preached it, the school preached it--EVERYONE preached it.

But--we'd been together a long time (even by most adult relationship standards, 3 years is a long time), we were in love, and we were using birth control. Does that change the fact that I got pregnant when I didn't want to, and that if I didn't want to be a parent, I shouldn't have been having sex? Not at all.

But face reality, folks. Unless you hide your kids away from all media, keep them in a closed society, and allow them to go NOWHERE but the bathroom without a trusted adult family member---Your teen is very likely going to have sex. Don't you want them to be informed about it, to KNOW how to prevent pregnancy and disease when and if they make that step?

I posted my ideas on how to do this earlier. I think everyone thought I was joking--I wasn't.

You want to stop underage sex? Then make it impossible for any teen to raise their kids without parental help or marriage. Make it harder to be a single parent. Take away welfare. Make it so that you either get married, abort, or choose adoption--none of this single parent, I didn't really love him crap. Make getting a divorce "because I'm not happy anymore" harder to do. Make there be very real consequences to having sex. Faced with watching your kid starve because you're going to school and working at McDonald's--guess what? All those "poor, desparate infertile couples" would have an ABUNDANCE of babies to choose from.

It's not the kids, it's not the parents--it's the fact that society forces no social or financial consequences on anyone that DOES get pregnant out of wedlock.

It's true that sometimes it happens that good parents have children who make an oops, but for the most part, it's poor children whose parents have failed.


I'm not saying that's the case 100% of the tim, but nowadays, it's usually parent failure that results in these problems because they don't talk to their kids and they fail to paren in general.

Either way, condoms=yes, BC, go to a free clinic at 16 (at least in my state) and get it without parental consent anyway, but maybe not at school.

No, it's not egregious or an assumption, bad parenting is what causes things like this to happen.


This is why parents should talk to their kids about the tough things, not just candycoat them and hope they go away. If they know how their parents will feel if somethng bad happens, because their parents said, hey we'll love you even if you do drugs or get pregnant or whatever, even tough you shouldn't do those things, then they were parenting well. Otherwise, it's failure on th part of the parents for nottalking to their kids about real issues.

From the first sentence, are you implying that unwanted pregnancies never happen to "good parents" or do you wait to judge parents until after their kid[s] are past their teenage years?

So because an instrumental member of the organization was a loon who supported eugenics it means the whole organization (which started in 1916) is, by association, horrible? Not sure what point you're trying to make here.


My post was in response to the why PP exists.


From

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)

Black women are almost four times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.[7]

The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women).[11]*

- So poor and or minority women have the highest rates or likelihoods of getting an abortion; whether intentional or not, this is consistent with Sanger's negative eugenics.


Eight percent of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[15]

- so 92 % are not using induced abortion as their first means of birth control



Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.[13]

- so even used correctly pill / condom use has a 13-14 % failure rate.

No, it's not egregious or an assumption, bad parenting is what causes things like this to happen.


This is why parents should talk to their kids about the tough things, not just candycoat them and hope they go away. If they know how their parents will feel if somethng bad happens, because their parents said, hey we'll love you even if you do drugs or get pregnant or whatever, even tough you shouldn't do those things, then they were parenting well. Otherwise, it's failure on th part of the parents for nottalking to their kids about real issues.

Charlotte, I think everyone agrees parents "should talk to their kids about the tough things" but you are still assuming that "bad parenting" is the only reason a kid "needs" to get "help" elsewhere and that's insane. You're assuming that the children of all "good" parents will go to their parents with any problem or when they make a mistake and that just ain't the real world. You've taken other influences out of the mix like friends, the entertainment industry, books, magazines, teachers, PP and even other family members. You - and parents - have no idea how they're being influenced at school, friend's houses and other places away from home, or how they act away from home. They may a completely different person away from home, and I know for a fact that children from the best homes stray in spite of every effort by the parent.

When a kid knows he/she can go to PP, or now possibly even the school clinic when they want condoms, BC, treatment for an STD, etc. without their parent's knowledge it only reinforces the idea that they're bulletproof and encourages the behavior.

That attitude is a huge part of the problem because it minimizes or removes accountability and consequences for the child. That's PP's attitude, kids should explore their sexuality, there should be no stigma in having sex, and we're going to make available whatever you need to do so and if there's a problem we're here to help with that, too - and your parents don't even need to know. That has to change.

Speechless, I do agree with you (bet you didn't expect to hear that), not all kids with good parents go to their parents when something bad happens. The problem that I have is that if we take away pp etc. that we are condeming allot of these kids with unwanted pregnancies, std's etc. because they would have nowhere else to go. I wish that these things didn't exist, but there is a need for them, like it or not. The best you can do is raise your children with open communication and love, hope that they value your opinion more than they value their friends and hope that they know that they can come to you with any problem. Even then, they might feel disinclined to come to you when the fit hits the shan. Wouldn't you rather that your kids have somewhere they can go, someone they can talk to if they don't feel that they can come to you? Once again, I hope I'm making sense and haven't taken anything you've stated out of context. I'm just a mom who cares very deeply for her kids and has seen too much Teenage pregnancy and the mostly unfavorable outcome to wear rose colored glasses when it comes to these issues.

Speechless, I do agree with you (bet you didn't expect to hear that)

Altenweg, I'm not that easily surprised. :)


not all kids with good parents go to their parents when something bad happens. The problem that I have is that if we take away pp etc. that we are condeming allot of these kids with unwanted pregnancies, std's etc. because they would have nowhere else to go. I wish that these things didn't exist, but there is a need for them, like it or not.

And I agree there are bad parents out there and someone has to step in and fill the void, I'd just rather it be the 'etc.' than PP. In my humble opinion (if I haven't made that clear enough already) the agenda they've pushed over the years exacerbates the problem, it doesn't solve the problem.

They believe (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/this-is-planned-parenthood.htm) EVERY person in the world has the right to "manage his or her fertility" as they put it, regardless of age. I'm sorry, but 13 year old girls do not have the right to manage their fertility themselves, or at least they shouldn't.

They believe we are sexual beings "from birth to death" and pledge to offer teens "the opportunities to explore and establish beliefs and attitudes" about sex. I'm sorry, but it's the parents place to offer "opportunities to explore and establish beliefs and attitudes" about everything. PP's whole world revolves around sex and we need to expose children to less sexuality instead of more if we ever hope to solve the problems of teen pregnancy and STD's.

I'm not advocating the current abstinence education, I haven't seen it for myself, but kids don't need PP's bias either. So where does that leave us? The answers aren't easy, but kids need more options than PP, and those that do need someone to step in should be required to demonstrate why their parents shouldn't be involved before any decisions are made. PP's attitude is yes, parents need to be involved in raising sexually responsible children - but - we know better than any stinkin' parents and we'll bypass them if we want to.


The best you can do is raise your children with open communication and love, hope that they value your opinion more than they value their friends and hope that they know that they can come to you with any problem. Even then, they might feel disinclined to come to you when the fit hits the shan.

Exactly.


Wouldn't you rather that your kids have somewhere they can go, someone they can talk to if they don't feel that they can come to you? Once again, I hope I'm making sense and haven't taken anything you've stated out of context. I'm just a mom who cares very deeply for her kids and has seen too much Teenage pregnancy and the mostly unfavorable outcome to wear rose colored glasses when it comes to these issues.

You make perfect sense, I actually wish I could find the right words to express what I'm really getting at myself. Of course we all want our kids to have somewhere to go if they don't feel comfortable talking to us, I just believe with all my heart there has to be something better than what PP offers and I'm fed up with their meddling in the lives of others and fighting against parental rights.

Wouldn't you rather that your kids have somewhere they can go, someone they can talk to if they don't feel that they can come to you?


I know I would...

And I'm not saying it's always bad parenting that causes these problems, I'm saying that probably 8/10 times, it is though.

My post was in response to the why PP exists.

Thanks for clearing that up. We could debate on if this was intended or not, but that's another thread! :)


- so even used correctly pill / condom use has a 13-14 % failure rate.

I checked your link and saw it does say that, but I wonder where they get their information (sources are not linkable) since it's contrary to virtually everything else out there.

Failure Rates of Contraceptives (http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html)

It also sounds very similar to the incorrect information and terminology put out by the abstinence-only advocates...

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf

Maybe it has to do with people reporting they use those methods perfectly, when in fact they do not. Who knows?

Condoms when used perfectly have a 2-3% failure rate, not 13-14%

Jillean

I loooked at that sites "about" - did not seem biased. The article had endnotes - but not linkable.

Probably a reporting or questionnaire factor - I agree

Ahh, only if things were perfect. ;)

Wouldn't you rather that your kids have somewhere they can go, someone they can talk to if they don't feel that they can come to you?


I know I would...

Actually... no.

I do not want my kids going to some stranger who has absolutely no idea about my family values, my relationship with my kids, and what decisions I would make for my kids to make these decisions for me. I do not want outsiders deciding what my kids can and can't do. I do not want moral and ethical decisions made by complete strangers who have no idea what my personal moral values are, and what values I wish to impart to my children.

I don't want someone to teach my kids that its okay to have sex before marriage as long as they use protection. And I for damn sure don't want someone saying that its okay to have an abortion if that protection fails.

These are MY perogatives as a parent. I do not want my kids to have "somewhere else to go" who will teach them values that are contrary to the ones that I wish to teach them. And I don't want them to be able to sneak around my back by going to PP or their school nurse.

Charlotte, you have said a number of times in this string that in the majority of cases, it is bad parenting that leads to teen pregnancy. I don't necessarily agree... but assuming that is true, why do you advocate for a better way for kids to sneak around behind their parents backs with the official okay of their schools? If you believe that a large part of the problem is that parents don't know what their kids are doing, why are you pushing for a program that will make it HARDER for parents to know what their kids are doing? Doesn't that seem backward to you?

Elliot

So Elliot, in that situation where the kids won't go to you, where do you advocate they go to?

So Elliot, in that situation where the kids won't go to you, where do you advocate they go to?

To me. If they have to try to deal with the problem on their own for a while without success, they will HAVE to come to me eventually.

In Alchoholics Anonymous, they call it hitting a bottom. When the problem becomes so overriding and so unmanageable that you have no choice but to seek help, you are ready to get help and start recovery. The alcoholic needs to feel the desperation of having no other choice but to seek help.

If my kids try to deal with such issues by themselves, but are unable to, and if the problem gets more unmanageable every day, they will eventually HAVE to come to the only people who can help them... their parents.

But if you give the kids a way out through school or PP, then they'll NEVER come to me. Why should they? The problem hasn't become unmanageable, and they don't feel the need to seek help.

So stop giving kids a way around their parents backs, and start making them feel the need to go to their parents with their sex-related problems. That's where these problems should be solved... not by school nurses and strangers from PP.

Elliot

To me. If they have to try to deal with the problem on their own for a while without success, they will HAVE to come to me eventually.

In Alchoholics Anonymous, they call it hitting a bottom. When the problem becomes so overriding and so unmanageable that you have no choice but to seek help, you are ready to get help and start recovery. The alchoholic needs to feel the desperation of having no other choice but to seek help.

If my kids try to deal with such issues by themselves, but are unable to, and if the problem gets more unmanageable every day, they will eventually HAVE to come to the only people who can help them... their parents.

But if you give the kids a way out through school or PP, then they'll NEVER come to me. Why should they? The problem hasn't become unmanageable, and they don't feel the need to seek help.

So stop giving kids a way around their parents backs, and start making them feel the need to go to their parents with their sex-related problems. That's where these problems should be solved... not by school nurses and strangers from PP.

Elliot

The thing that worries me about this is the fact that teenagers don't always think things through in a logical fashion, there is another option to what you are suggesting, and that is suicide. Some kids would rather end their own lives than go to their parents with a problem, it happens everyday. Some of these kids really don't feel that they have any choice, they'd rather end their lives then risk the anger, disappointment etc. of their parents. You would obviously be there for your kids no matter what (for which you deserve a pat on the back) and I think that most of us would do the same, but are you sure that your kids know this, are you absolutely sure that if push came to shove they'd come to you? I'm just saying that things don't always go the way we think they will, you can have the best relationship with your kids, open communication and support and they can still make the wrong decisions. What if you take away every available option to them? They might just make the worst decision yet, to end their lives.

Altweg,

You raise an excellent point regarding teen suicide.

But will the chances of a parent figuring out that their kids suffer from depression increase or decrease if we allow kids to avoid communicating with their parents? Will it be better or worse if we make kids and parents communicate?

Allowing kids to avoid speaking with their parents about major problems doesn't solve the issue of teen suicide, it just postpones it until the next major problem comes up. But making sure that kids HAVE to go to their parents for help increases the chances that a parent will spot a problem and help their kid through that depression.

And by the way, I speak as a sufferer of clinical depression who is on medication and in therapy for such. I know that when I was able to AVOID dealing with my daily problems, the depression actually got worse because I felt that NOBODY could ever understand where I was coming from. But when I was forced to CONFRONT my daily problems and get help for solving them, I was making a connection with my fellow human beings, and suddenly I realized that they understood me and cared for me. (Granted, the Zoloft helped too, but that was only part of the solution.)

By making kids CONNECT with their parents, chances are that they will come to understand that their parents care for them, will help them, and understand what they are going through, thus limiting the impact of their depression. But by giving them the opportunity to AVOID connecting with their parents, what you are doing is reinforcing the (usually unreal) idea that their parents wouldn't understand, don't care, and wouldn't want to help them. That results in an increase in the impact of depression.

So while I agree that teen suicide and teen depression is something to consider in this discussion, I believe that getting kids to connect with theior parents only helps the situation, by increasing the chances that parents will spot a problem before it happens, and by making the kid realize that he is cared for and loved by his parents.

Does this make any sense to you? I realize that some of it comes off as pop-psychology or armchair psychology, but this really does come under the heading of "systems theory" in psychology. There's a lot of literature to back up the idea of creating the healthy support system to counter depressive feelings. And also in support of addiction recovery, trauma recovery, and other areas of psychology. And it worked/is working for me in my own case.

Elliot

But making sure that kids HAVE to go to their parents for help increases the chances that a parent will spot a problem and help their kid through that depression.Altenweg's question referred to the "what if they don't" scenario; then where does a child turn to? There is no 100% foolproof way to make sure that the kids will go to their parents for those that feel shamed by their situation. I feel that a third party outfit that can help the children is a good last resort. Beats losing your child forever.

So stop giving kids a way around their parents backs, and start making them feel the need to go to their parents with their sex-related problems. That's where these problems should be solved... not by school nurses and strangers from PP.

Bingo, just the words I was looking for.

Altenweg's question referred to the "what if they don't" scenario; then where does a child turn to? There is no 100% foolproof way to make sure that the kids will go to their parents for those that feel shamed by their situation. I feel that a third party outfit that can help the children is a good last resort. Beats losing your child forever.

I have no problem with a third party solution but I think that party should be a mediator, make every effort first to reach a solution between parent and child. That may not be ideal but it beats the heck out of as Elliot so aptly put it, "giving kids a way around their parents backs." The group most mentioned, Planned Parenthood, makes it clear that when it comes right down to it they don't really care what the parents want. That's the problem.

And yet... what if their parents really ARE more concerned about "how things look" or what it means to THEM than the welfare of their child?

I have a friend whose mother literally beat her, in hopes of making her miscarry, when she went to her to tell her that she was pregnant. The reason she told her mom? Because she needed parental permission for an abortion (she was 15 at the time, and had been raped by a guy she had been dating). She didn't feel her mother would believe her about the rape (and she didn't) and felt that an abortion was better than bringing her child up in the household with her mother.

What of those parents would would force an abortion or an adoption because "I'm not old enough to be a grandparent!" or "What will the neighbors think about how I'm bringing you up!"

If you take away other options than parents, you are also taking away a teen's right to choose her own options for an unplanned pregnancy.

And regardless what you think--there are ALWAYS ways to coerce your child to do what you want--like not signing permission for an abortion, or kicking you out, pregnant and alone with no support if you want to parent, or refusing to help in any way unless you sign something while you are still pregnant stating that you will give the child up for adoption. It may not be legal--but what teenager is going to NOT believe what their parents say when they hold all of the legal power over them.

Again--schools should not be dispensing medication, but I can't say that teens shouldn't NOT have the option to protect themselves either.

The group most mentioned, Planned Parenthood, makes it clear that when it comes right down to it they don't really care what the parents want. That's the problem.That's your opinion of course, but it's not fact.

Planned Parenthood Connecticut, Birth Control, Reproductive health, Women's Rights (http://www.ppct.org/education/education_intro.htm)

COMMUNITY EDUCATION
PPC’s Education and Training Department staff are available to provide community education workshops to your parent or youth group. Our highly interactive, practical workshops are designed to maximize learning about sexuality and sexuality-related topics in a comfortable, positive environment. Our age-appropriate, medically accurate materials and resources reflect our cultural competence and commitment to meeting the needs of our audience. Workshops can range in time from an hour to multiple sessions to best meet your needs.

Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania :: Educational Programs (http://www.pparenthood.com/educational.asp)

Youth First is a comprehensive, multi-dimensional program designed in partnership with Philadelphia area middle and high schools to help young people make responsible decisions about their sexuality and health. Youth First consists of six specific components: long-term, comprehensive, age-specific, sexuality education; leadership development; social services/counseling; youth-friendly, accessible health services; professional development; and parental education and support.

Planned Parenthood Comprehensive Sex Ed Bills - (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/sexed-bills-14836.htm)

Involving Parents
For states facing opposition to comprehensive sex education, Planned Parenthood Federation of America has drafted the Parents Right to Know Act, state legislation asserting that parents have a right to be involved in their children's education and must be notified if their sexual health curriculum is lacking accurate information about preventing pregnancy and STIs.

Wow, we've gone full circle and still haven't managed to find a common ground on this issue. Let's face it, we could talk until we're blue in the face and never agree on every point. I understand and respect everyone's point of view, but I do think that some of you are wearing rose colored glasses with respect to teenagers. I had a good head on my shoulders as a teenager, I knew the difference between right and wrong and had a very close relationship with my parents. Although they didn't expect me to wait until I was married to have sex, they did hope that I'd wait until I was in a committed loving relationship with the man that I would eventually marry before I took that step, I respected their opinion and honestly had ever intention of going with their wishes. I didn't. I fell into Lust (for lack of a better word) with a boy that I barely knew and one night I decided to push everything my parents had told me aside and we had sex. He did use a condom and we were careful but I didn't love him and I did feel guilty about going against my parents wishes. We ended up having a sexual relationship for a few months and one time the condom broke and I ended up being two weeks late. I was in a panic and didn't feel that I could go to my loving parents with this problem. I called up the boy and we decided to go to a walk in clinic for a pregnancy test. Thankfully it turned out to be a false alarm, but had it not I would have been grateful for the services available to me. I don't believe that I would have had an abortion, that is not something I could ever choose, although I do believe in a woman's right to make that choice for herself. I know that my parents would have supported me, they would have stood behind me, even having known that I would have done anything possible for them not to find out. Yes, I would have had to tell them eventually, but I don't think that we should make it impossible for teens to find a way out by themselves. Yes, they are still kids in a lot of ways, no they are not always intelligent enough to make responsible decisions, but at least we should give them options if they have no where else to turn. If you take away PP etc then you will force all teens to go to there parents, not everyone is a good parent, not all parents will support their kids, your kids will be fine, what about the others?

Some parents will even kids the teens out of the house. :(

Some parents will even kids the teens out of the house. :(


My point exactly, some kids really have nowhere to turn to.

That's your opinion of course, but it's not fact.

Interesting requirement of the Involving Parents segment:


The draft legislation sets up a process for parents to review curricula and would require that parents be notified if their children are receiving abstinence-only sex education.

But would it require parental notification if their children were being indoctrinated otherwise? Anyway, I'll see your parental involvement clause and raise you a double standard:


Rep. John Fritchey yesterday proposed a bill in Illinois that expands the definition of parental notification for teens seeking an abortion. The Adolescent Health Care Safety Act (HB 317) would allow teens seeking an abortion to consult with a trusted adult other than a parent. State Attorney General Lisa Madigan on Friday requested that the injunction on the Parental Notification of Abortion Act be lifted, allowing the 12-year-old law to be enforced.

“We are disappointed (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/east-central-illinois/media-release-012207.htm) that Attorney General Madigan has gone before the Federal Court to lift the injunction on this extremely old law. It is harmful and dangerous to the teens in our communities. We strongly support Rep. Fritchey’s legislation to allow another trusted adult—a priest or member of the clergy or other adult family member—to be notified when a teen is dealing with a difficult decision regarding her pregnancy,” said Karla Peterson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of East Central Illinois.


We're pleased (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/parental-notification-12163.htm) that the Florida Supreme Court ruled five to one today that parental notification requirements abridge a minor's right to privacy, as explicitly protected by the Florida Constitution. Mandatory parental notification laws create the opposite of their proposed purpose by scaring young people away from seeking vital health care services. Erecting barriers to health care will increase the numbers of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection and endanger the emotional and physical health of young women who seek abortion services.

Planned Parenthood encourages young women to involve their parents when making reproductive health decisions, but not every family is a model family. Teens most at risk for unintended pregnancy may be least able to turn to their parents.


Planned Parenthood and Parental Notification
(http://www.plannedparenthood.org/rocky-mountains/planned-parenthood-and-parental-notification.htm)
Of all the abortion-related policy issues facing decision-makers in this country today, parental consent or notification before a minor may obtain an abortion is one of the most difficult. Planned Parenthood wholeheartedly encourages parental involvement when a young woman is faced with an unplanned pregnancy. In fact, in our health centers, 73% of our clients who are teenage girls already involve a parent.

Unfortunately, some young women cannot involve their parents because they come from homes where physical violence and emotional abuse are prevalent or because their pregnancies are the result of incest. In other cases, young women may not realize how supportive their parents might be. In some circumstances, teens facing a crisis pregnancy feel compelled to travel to another state where there is a less stringent parental involvement law or no such law at all, to avoid involving their parents and maintain their privacy. In the direst circumstances, some pregnant young women who fear telling their parents may feel so desperate that they resort to illegal or self-induced abortions that may result in death.

Recognizing this, Colorado legislators incorporated into the law the right for a minor to apply for a judicial bypass of the parental notification. This judicial bypass process can be intimidating and, most importantly, time-consuming. Delays at this crucial time will heighten both physical and emotional health risks, as well as substantially increase the cost of an abortion.

We know that these hurdles can overwhelm teens. Some young women cannot maneuver the legal procedures required or cannot attend hearings scheduled during school hours. Others do not connect with the system because they fear that the proceedings are not confidential or that people at the courthouse will recognize them. Many may experience denial or panic. They cannot imagine revealing intimate details of their personal lives in court. These teens will become overwhelmed with navigating the system alone.

We will not stand by and watch this happen. We have created a free and private statewide response system to the legal needs of minors who seek the judicial bypass option...

Through our toll-free hotline (1.866.277.2771) Colorado minors can learn more about the parental notification law and receive attorney referrals for representation. By organizing a network of attorneys, health care providers and crisis intervention specialists, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains can stay on top of the real-life issues facing these minors as they access their constitutional right to choose.


JDP is fighting on just one front of a growing state-by-state struggle against parental involvement legislation (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/texas-teens-5959.htm). Pro-choice advocates encourage healthy teen-parent communication. Such laws, they say, do not. They not only threaten the rights and safety of teen girls, but they also chip away at the reproductive freedom of all women. "Minors do have reproductive rights," says former JDP Executive Director Diana Philip, noting the supreme irony that minors can give birth without a parent's knowledge, but they can't get an abortion. "But they're an easy target. If you go after the population of people who don't have a vote and take away their rights first, it's easier to take away the rights of all. Roe v. Wade is deteriorating because of these measures."


Because Planned Parenthood is so worried about the health and safety of pregnant teens, we have proposed HB 317, the Adolescent Health Care Safety Act to replace the old 1995 law. This new bill will expand the definition of adult family member (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/heart-of-illinois/images/Heart-of-Illinois/Spring_2007_Newsletter.pdf) (pdf) who can waive the 48 hour notification so that a young woman can turn to an aunt, uncle, or adult sibling in addition to her parents or grandparents. Clergy are also included to receive notification. In addition, if a teen can not talk to any eligible adult family member or clergy, she can talk to a licensed health or mental health professional who will ensure she receives complete options information. Once she has received the required counseling from one of these professional, the notification requirement can be waived.


While parental notification laws might seem reasonable (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/mar-monte/files/Mar%20Monte/Valley_Summer_NewsFinal.pdf) (pdf) at first glance, they actually place the safety of vulnerable teens in jeopardy. If a teen feels unable to talk to her parents about sensitive issues like abortion, or is reluctant to disappoint her parents by telling them she is pregnant, or comes from an abusive home, parental notification laws may delay or prevent her from obtaining safe medical care. Still worse, they can drive a frightened teen to risk her life and her health by resorting to dangerous, medically unsound means of ending her pregnancy.

Oh, and my favorite today, recruiting kids to promote their agenda (http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2005/if-20050118p091-choice.php)...

NK, PP always tries to insert the PC phrases in their articles like "Planned Parenthood encourages young women to involve their parents" - BUT...

It's the 'buts' that are worrisome. They are actively fighting against parental consent/notification laws. They are actively engaged in passing legislation to "expand the definition of adult family member" to just about anyone. They do furnish information on consent/notification laws followed by telling kids what states they can go to to avoid the law and get an abortion anyway. All the while inserting their patented scare phrases like "they can drive a frightened teen to risk her life and her health by resorting to dangerous, medically unsound means of ending her pregnancy" and the gratuitous "we care about teens health" line.

The facts show exactly what I said, PP doesn't care what parents want. Oh they give their ideal family situation, but they make darn sure everyone knows the child's "right to privacy," "reproductive rights" or whatever term they choose at the moment trumps parental involvement. So if a teen "feels" unable to talk to her parents or is "reluctant to disappoint her parents" they shouldn't have to talk to their parents. I'm sorry, a kid's "reluctance" or "feeling" unable to talk to their parents is no excuse to exclude the parents.

Out of curiosity, Speech--would PP informing you have made a difference in your daughter's health?

I had no problem with the pro-choice ideas they gave. Even teens have ideas on whether abortion should happen--or do you think that people turn 18 before they have any political ideas?

All of those things you posted seems extremely reasonable to me. Trying involve family in some way is GREAT--but there ARE young women out there for whom informing their family could have detrimental or fatal results. Period. For every worse-case scenario you could give me where a parent should have been involved from the start, I can give you one where the parent shouldn't EVER be informed.

What it comes down to is that there NEEDS to be someplace teens can go to get medical help when they can't go to their families, or FEEL like they can't. I respect that you don't care for Planned Parenthood and their "agenda"--but what would you put in its place?

Sorry mate, I would rather see my child see PP rather than a clergy member, we all know what problems the clergy caused with children (hint: they have ruined more young lives that PP ever will). Regardless of that talking to a trusted family member is preferable.

I see that this is a personal issue with you because of an event with your daughter and thus no argument is good enough. I respectfully unsubscribe from this thread.

what about the others?

Believe it or not I think we all agree there is the issue of "what about the others?" Of course they need options, I've never denied that - I just think there has to be a better option than PP. I've already shared my personal experience with why I feel that way, and the hell we went through thanks in part to them I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Our lives were forever changed because our daughter made some poor choices, among them turning to PP instead of us, and besides the child she still mourns for their incompetent "health care" left her a physical disaster for what may be a needlessly short life. That's also what happens when a child takes the easy way out with strangers with an agenda rather than turn to the people that truly love them, because she "feels" she can't or is "reluctant" to talk to her parents.

Contraception in schools? For who? The teachers? Yes, by all means. When a teacher has sex with a student, they should use contraception. By all means.

Out of curiosity, Speech--would PP informing you have made a difference in your daughter's health?

If you mean them informing me of their "care" of my daughter, heck yeah it would have made a difference. It's a lot better to treat HIV early before it turns to AIDS, your CD4 count gets down below 20, your kidneys fail and you acquire PCP and other opportunistic diseases.


but there ARE young women out there for whom informing their family could have detrimental or fatal results. Period.

I've never denied that. I just think there are far more good parents than bad parents and they will end up paying the price for this movement to bypass parental consent.


What it comes down to is that there NEEDS to be someplace teens can go to get medical help when they can't go to their families, or FEEL like they can't. I respect that you don't care for Planned Parenthood and their "agenda"--but what would you put in its place?

Good question, I don't know, but I would think everyone would be happy with a center without an agenda other than doing what's absolutely best for all, that makes every effort to include the parents in any decisions for minor children. Apparently that's not a crisis pregnancy center and it darn sure ain't PP.

Sorry mate, I would rather see my child see PP rather than a clergy member, we all know what problems the clergy caused with children (hint: they have ruined more young lives that PP ever will). Regardless of that talking to a trusted family member is preferable.

I see that this is a personal issue with you because of an event with your daughter and thus no argument is good enough. I respectfully unsubscribe from this thread.

Hey, if you look at my last response to you it's PP that wants to make clergy a substitute family member, not me. And I do think there is a middle ground, I haven't called for a crisis pregnancy center as the alternative but without fail every advocate on this subject has listed PP as the place to turn to. Offer me something else...

Believe it or not I think we all agree there is the issue of "what about the others?" Of course they need options, I've never denied that - I just think there has to be a better option than PP. I've already shared my personal experience with why I feel that way, and the hell we went through thanks in part to them I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Our lives were forever changed because our daughter made some poor choices, among them turning to PP instead of us, and besides the child she still mourns for their incompetent "health care" left her a physical disaster for what may be a needlessly short life. That's also what happens when a child takes the easy way out with strangers with an agenda rather than turn to the people that truly love them, because she "feels" she can't or is "reluctant" to talk to her parents.

I am truly sorry that you and your daughter had to go through this. I think that I've mentioned before that I don't live in the US, I live in Canada. Things are very different here, and I speak from that experience. I will risk being politically incorrect and tell you that you are in my prayers. I now understand why you feel the way you do. You obviously feel very strongly about this, maybe the experiences you had is a hint that you were meant to make things change for the better. I don't know what that would entail, I wish I had the answers, I only have opinions based of the things I've gone through and the things I've seen other people go through. Judging by all the different opinions here, I would venture to say that we will never find a solution that will make everyone happy and safe. Best of luck to you.

I am truly sorry that you and your daughter had to go through this. I think that I've mentioned before that I don't live in the US, I live in Canada. Things are very different here, and I speak from that experience. I will risk being politically incorrect and tell you that you are in my prayers. I now understand why you feel the way you do. You obviously feel very strongly about this, maybe the experiences you had is a hint that you were meant to make things change for the better. I don't know what that would entail, I wish I had the answers, I only have opinions based of the things I've gone through and the things I've seen other people go through. Judging by all the different opinions here, I would venture to say that we will never find a solution that will make everyone happy and safe. Best of luck to you.

No need to feel bad for me but prayers are always welcome on this end. Besides, I think I've risked being a little politically incorrect here, lol :)

You hit the key for why I speak as I do, though, I feel if one person avoids the mess we've experienced all my ranting will have been worth it. But when it gets down to it I reluctantly agree that "we will never find a solution that will make everyone happy and safe."

Steve

I think school nurses should be able to sell preventatives to students because if one is already planning to have sex, then they should at least be able to prevent getting pregnant or impregnating a girl.

I would like to ad that parents should be informed. But no one else. Parents should no in order to be prepared in the case that a preventative doesn't work or maybe a disease is passed

Altenweg's question referred to the "what if they don't" scenario; then where does a child turn to? There is no 100% foolproof way to make sure that the kids will go to their parents for those that feel shamed by their situation. I feel that a third party outfit that can help the children is a good last resort. Beats losing your child forever.

Should it the job of PP to give abortions or to give COUNSELING... and in the case of minors, to counsel them to seek help from their parents?

Should school nurses be handing out contraceptives, or should they be counseling kids to seek help from parents?

I don't have a problem with PP or school nurses counseling kids who are "in trouble" as to what their options are, and acting as someone the kids can go to if they feel they can't go to their parents. But counseling a distraught teen is a far cry from handing out free abortions and contraceptives on demand without parental consent.

Counsel all you want. But the moment you start handing our pharmaceuticals or performing medical procedures on my kids without my permission, you've stepped over a HUGE line.

Elliot

FREE abortions? When the heck does THAT happen?

And if they DID inform you that your child was going to receive an abortion--what would your response be? Would you allow your child to make the choice on their own?

Didn't think so.

THAT is why abortions are confidential, regardless whether the pregnant woman is 16 or 36.

While I don't like the idea of medications just being handed out TO anyone BY anyone--PP also does require a physical exam before you can receive birth control pills/IUDs/whatever. You can't just walk in and ask for a package of birth control pills! There are DOCTORS at PP. And, as has been previously mentioned--you can go in just to get information about birth control and STDs.

As I've asked before--if you don't want Planned Parenthood to exist for those who need it--what are you going to put in its place? I know that when I was a teen, there was no way I was going anyplace that was just going to "tattle" on me to my parents, and my parents would have just said "Don't have sex!!" and not given me the information I'm looking for.

Would you rather kids get their info off the internet?

Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas: (http://www.pphouston.org/site/PageServer?pagename=parentnotification)


A new Texas law requiring Parental Consent for teens seeking abortion goes into effect September 1, 2005. Beginning on this date, the teen's parent with a valid ID, or the teen's legal guardian with an ID and proof of guardianship (i.e. court papers) will need to be present with the minor.
You may want to get more information about your choices or talk with someone you trust not someone who will decide for you, but someone to help you decide what you think will be best for you. This should be a person who cares about you. In most cases, a parent will be your best support. However, many girls feel that they can't talk to their parents. That is understandable. If you feel that you can't talk to your parents, you may want to ask another trusted person to help you talk to your parents or to help you with your decision.
That person could be:
An adult family member (brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandparent, cousin, etc)
Your doctor or someone in your doctor's office
Your minister, priest, rabbi, or other religious counselor
Your best friend's parents
A counselor in your school, a clinic, or a social service agency.Get all the facts. Then make the decision that you believe will be the best one for you.

They seem to be acting properly, not as others attribute them to be.

FREE abortions? When the heck does THAT happen?

And if they DID inform you that your child was going to receive an abortion--what would your response be? Would you allow your child to make the choice on their own?

Didn't think so.

Are you saying that it isn't my right as a parent to make decisions for my minor child? Are you saying that it is the right of perfect strangers to take that right away from me?

Earlier in this string, I asked the question of whether you felt that minors were able to make decisions regarding sex... like having sex with a 35-year-old man? If you believe that it is okay, and that kids do have the capacity to make such decisions, then there should be no such thing as statutory rape.

But if you feel that a 35 having sex with a teen is wrong, even if the kid consents, then what you are saying is that kids do not have the capacity to make such decisions on their own. And if they don't have that capacity for having sex with a 35 year old, then they don't have it for having sex with another teen either... or for the life and death decisions that come AFTER having sex.

So choose. If children have the capacity to choose, then I don't ever want to hear another word about statutory rape, or kids being "targeted" by "predators" on the internet. The kids can make their own choices, and barring actual rape, as in forced sex, it should be perfectly fine for an adult to have sex with a minor.

But if you feel that kids do not have that capacity for choice regarding sex, then that works for sex with anyone of any age. In which case, they do NOT have the capacity to choose regarding abortions or contraception either. In that case, it is MY job as a parent to make that choice... even if it is contrary to what my kid would choose... because we have established that they are incapable making that choice.

But either way, it sure as heck ain't PP's job or the school nurse's job to make that choice.


THAT is why abortions are confidential, regardless whether the pregnant woman is 16 or 36.

I don't care what adults are doing, but minors do not and should not have a presumption of "confidentiality" from their parents.


While I don't like the idea of medications just being handed out TO anyone BY anyone--PP also does require a physical exam before you can receive birth control pills/IUDs/whatever. You can't just walk in and ask for a package of birth control pills! There are DOCTORS at PP. And, as has been previously mentioned--you can go in just to get information about birth control and STDs.

If kids want information pamphlets, that's fine... but that's the ONLY thing that PP should be handing out. What gives them the right to make medical decisions for my kids without my knowledge?


As I've asked before--if you don't want Planned Parenthood to exist for those who need it--what are you going to put in its place? I know that when I was a teen, there was no way I was going anyplace that was just going to "tattle" on me to my parents, and my parents would have just said "Don't have sex!!" and not given me the information I'm looking for.

Would you rather kids get their info off the internet?

What would I do instead? How about reinstitute the idea of responsibility. Parents should be responsible for their kids, and they should teach their kids to ACT responsibly for themselves. The idea that a kid can have sex, get pregnant, and just go to PP for an abortion, thus avoiding the consequenes of their actions (not even getting grounded for disobeying my rules because thanks to a conspiracy of silence by PP and my kid to keep information about my kid's health from me, I have no idea that the event even took place), is completely contrary to the idea of personal responsibility. THAT'S what I would put in its place... RESPONSIBILITY.

As for being afraid to go to your parents because they would just have said "Don't have sex" and not given you what you were looking for... what makes you think you are supposed to have that information in the first place as a minor? If there's such a thing as statutory rape, then you shouldn't be having sex as a minor, and therefore you really don't need the information about sex right now. You only need that information if you are having sex. And you're not supposed to be having sex as a minor.

Look, it is obvious to me that we have different goals here.

What you want is for there to be a way for kids to 1) get the knowledge of how to have sex "safely" (despite the fact that they shouldn't be having sex at all as minors), 2) avoid the consequences of having sex, and 3) do all of this without the parents' knowledge or consent.

What I want is 1) for my kids not to have sex as minors and not receive help in doing so, 2) my kids to learn to be responsible for their actions, and 3) to be able to make the responsible decisions about my children's wellbeing without interference and a conspiracy of silence from outsiders.

Your way teaches kids that keeping secrets from their parents is not only okay, but will be supported by various government-supported agencies.

My way teaches responsibility, honesty and discipline.

Guess which of these works better for the kids when they grow to adulthood.

Elliot

Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas: (http://www.pphouston.org/site/PageServer?pagename=parentnotification)


They seem to be acting properly, not as others attribute them to be.

"Seem to be" is right. Look NK, they know how to say all the right things when they want to, but that doesn't tell the whole story. I already posted previously to you - in their own words - how they support bypassing parental involvement (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/contraception-schools-159378-post777786.html#post777786), even if the teen only "feels unable to talk to her parents" or "is reluctant to disappoint her parents."

Well, boo hoo, that ain't a good enough reason to take away my rights as a parent, and there is no way I can consider PP a friend while they're fighting against my rights.

Okay... first off abortion isn't an escape from responsibility. It's a very hard choice, regardless of age. Just as the OTHER two options when an unwanted pregnancy happens are hard choices.

Second--if you'll read back over my posts, I've been advocating personal responsibility for some time now. I am ALSO a realist, though. People are going to have sex, whether you believe it or not. NOT giving them education isn't stopping it--it's just making it less safe overall.

Third--instilling values is great. My parents brought me up with a GREAT sense of values, and I still had sex as a teen--mostly because, even though my mother ALSO had been pregnant as a teen (married as a teen, too, and they're STILL married to each other), I couldn't believe that my parents could possibly understand. And really--they didn't.

Fourth--PP doesn't make medical decisions for minors. They help minors make medical decisions for themselves. I've NEVER heard of anyone going to PP who was forced to take birth control or have an abortion--those were personal decisions made by the patient, regardless of age.

MY way teaches:
1. There are ways to take care of yourself out there, and you don't HAVE to depend on your parents giving you faulty/negligent information.
2. If you need help, and can NOT go to your parents, for whatever reason, there is a place to go.
3. YOU are in charge of your own body, regardless of your age. No one, not even your parents, can make you be something or someone you are not--and that includes a murderer (if forced to abort) or a mother (if forced to carry to term).

YOUR way teaches:
1. The only place to go is parents, and it's easier to get forgiveness than permission.
2. PARENTS are in charge of every aspect of your life until you turn 18--so hurry and turn 18 and THEN learn everything you need to in order to live as an adult.
3. Adult decisions can ONLY start when you're 18, so don't think about college, the military, politics, economics, contraception--just don't even THINK about adult things until you're 18, because Mom and Dad are going to override whatever you think anyway. How can kids make responsible decisions if you don't give them the chance?

Give me a break. Kids make adult decisions all the time--whether it's about sex, or grades, or serving community service, or whatever. Denying that your kids are thinking of having sex is denying that they're teenagers. You're not making a decision not to have sex if you're locked in your room during non-school hours.

And I don't think that they're "avoiding" the consequences of sex--regardless of whether sex results in a pregnancy or STD, there are consequences to sex. Emotional ties, loss of innocence, whatever.

You make it sound like I'm promoting that every teen out there have sex and then get an abortion when they get pregnant--which isn't even CLOSE to true.

I just want them educated, and unfortunately, most school programs focus on "don't have sex!" and nearly all parents focus on "don't have sex!" and no one seems to focus on "if you're going to have sex no matter what you've been told the consequences are, here are the ways to be safer" except PP.

For goodness sakes--read the teen forums here! Read the pregnancy and new motherhood threads! And the adult sexuality boards. You have NO idea how few people have a clue about how their bodies work, and the ways it's even POSSIBLE to get pregnant. Just as many have no clue how birth control works or how to have an orgasm! Most don't know how to use a condom properly, or a spermicide or half the other forms of birth control--and not just teens! Adults don't know either!

I agree (And I'll KEEP stating this) that school nurses have no business prescribing birth control. HOWEVER--if a doctor's office or Planned Parenthood or any OTHER crisis pregnancy center will give a full exam before prescribing the pill, then the teen should be able to take responsibility for her own body.

As far as your notion that if teens can choose to have sex, they can choose to have sex with ANYONE--well, that would be great, except we KNOW that teens are more susceptible to coercion. The 2 year rule most states have is wise, in my opinion.

It is the job of parents to keep talking about sex, and about their expectations of their teens, certainly. It's also the job of parents to teach teens to respect themselves and their own bodies--and to NOT just jump out there and have sex because someone ELSE wants them to.

Your example about the age difference is ridiculous--and something along the lines of "if a toddler can decide what they want for lunch, they should be able to COOK it too!"

What makes you think that a toddler can decide what to have for lunch? Mine want cake and cookies all the time. The fact is that they CAN'T make those decisions for themselves. And neither can teens make decisions regarding sex, abortions, etc, and should not be allowed to make those decisions for themselves. Your example is proving my point.

More tomorrow.

Elliot

Oh--you've never given your toddler the choice between not eating and eating whatever YOU put on their plate? Or the choice between macaroni and cheese or hotdogs? That's not choosing?

I believe that kids of ALL ages are capable of making reasonable choices for their age. Yes, as parents, adults need to make SOME of the choices for them (As in--not cake for breakfast). But we also need to give them SOME choices with actual consequences (if you don't wear your helmet, you can't ride your bike).

What YOU are telling me is that emotionally and physically, an 18 year old is completely different than a 17 year old - and that's just unreasonable.

I'm done--we're never going to concede each other's points on this. I think you're being unreasonable about what kids think and do, and you think I'm advocating that kids have sex and abortions. There's no middle ground.

I don't think any contraceptives should be offered to middle schoolers. The only thing that should be offered to them is better education, I know some of you believe that kids shouldn't even be taught about that kind of stuff by anyone but their parents but some parents won't talk to their kids about or if they just say something to get their kids to shut up and stop talking about it. Personally, kids are going to get information one way or another I'd rather them have acurate information.
As for high school students I think that condoms should be available, along with pamplets and stuff like that maybe in a bowl in the nurses office or counseler's office. Here's the thing, kids are going to do what they're going to do. They will find a way no matter what. Its better they have a way to get protection than have sex without.

In my school you could go to the school nurs ang go on the pill or get comdoms and it was conferdential I was allways to ashened lol

Hello Twinkel-star,

I would like to ask you a few questions if I may. You seem to have the unique perspective of youth that many on this board (myself included) do not have, and your opinions as a young person would be appreciated.

First of all, are you currently in high school or a recent graduate?

Second, you mention that at your school anyone could go to the school nurse and get the pill or condoms. Was this a comon practice among your fellow students? Did lots of people do go to the nurse for these things?

In your experience, were the ones getting the pill or condoms particularly poor, or from bad families, or was everyone doing it?

Were you ever taught in school NOT to have sex, or were you only told how to have sex safely?

Where did most kids learn about sex in your school? Was it from sex ed classes or from other people?

In your opinion, did sex-ed do anything to keep kids from having sex and getting pregnant? Did it make more kids have sex and get pregnant? Or did it not make any difference at all? Did you learn about the dangers of sex (diseases, pregnancy, the effect on your future, etc.)?

In your opinion, what should schools, parents, teachers and others be telling kids to keep them from having sex, getting pregnant and getting sick? Do you think that TV, newspapers, magazines, movies, and music could influence kids if they all told kids not to have sex too young?

As I said, you live in that world, where most people on this board no longer do. So your perspective on this questions would be an interesting addition to this conversation.

Thanks Twinkel-star, and I hope that I'm not embarrassing you. That is most certainly not my intention. I really do want to know what you, as a young person think about these things, because I believe that what you think is an important part of understanding how to help kids not get sick or pregnant.

Elliot

I am not from the US. There is one thing that amazes me when I read this discussion:

Many of you talk about minors as one irresponsible, incapable group. It seems like you miss the fact that there is a fundamental difference between say a 13-14 year old and a 16-17 year old. Yes I agree with you that giving birth control pills to a 13 year old without parental consent probably is a bad idea.

However, as adolescents grow older they become more capable of taking care of themselves, and should accordingly have more rights to make their own decisions. By age 16 and 17, minors are generally capable and responsible enough to take care of their own sexuality and healthcare.

In my country like many other countries the age of sexual consent and the age of medical consent/medical emancipation is 16.

To suggest that a 16-17 year old is incapable of consenting to their own healthcare and has no right to privacy is to me and to most europeans totally absurd.

By age 16 and 17, minors are generally capable and responsible enough to take care of their own sexuality and healthcare.

Perhaps

But we are talking here about the administering of a drug to a minor who's body has not yet fully developed . Without a medical reason for doing so that is a risky move in my book .

Blame contraception programs for STD epidemic (http://www.kentucky.com/589/story/355503.html)


"Have any of the so-called experts actually looked at real life data over the past 30 to 40 years? During that time, every negative sexually related outcome -- teen sexual activity, teen pregnancy, STDs, abortion -- rose in direct correlation with increased funding for contraception sex education"


"Do the so-called experts know that the federal funding ratio is 92.3 percent for contraception programs versus 7.7 percent for abstinence/healthy-relationship programs? Who in their right mind would blame the STD epidemic on abstinence programs with such imbalanced funding?"





Contrast that with the NYT propaganda

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/science/12std.html

"The president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Cecile Richards, said the new findings “emphasize the need for real comprehensive sex education.”

“The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure,” Ms. Richards said, “and teenage girls are paying the real price."

Yeah, Planned parenthood using these disturbing statistics to plea for more "education"
The statistics bear out founder, Margaret Sanger's attitudes towards blacks.

The rise in teen pregnancy can ALSO directly be corralated to women working outside the home, and the rise in divorce/single parent homes.

Let's ban divorce! Let's make women stay home with children and raise them! Let's go back to victorian ages where no one even TALKS about sex, much less has it outside of marriage, except men, of course, who can have sex with women lower class than they are when they hit puberty and pass on those sexually transmitted to their virgin brides.

You can corrolate any number of facts over 40 years, but how can you POSSIBLY blame any ONE factor for something so encompassing of our entire society?

I say yes to condoms but no to hormonal because. Kids are going to do what they want so the nurses might as well offer condoms. It should definitely be confidential. Other doctors have to maintain confidentiality, so should the school nurse. They could do it like planned parenthood, have a basket that say 3 free, 4 for $1 or something.
I only say no to the school nurse giving out hormonal because because that something that needs a prescription for a reason. There's so many different forms of hormonal because and sometimes it takes a while to find the one that's right for a girl and you have to make sure it doesn't interfere with any other meds or anything like that and I just really feel that its something that should be monitored by a regular doctor who knows the details of the rest of your health.

justcurious, in this case, the pill is being distributed by a regular doctor. The teens are getting it by visiting a clinic with actual doctors, not school nurses. They are also only given the pill after a full exam, just like in your regular family doctor's office.

And Synnen, I think you've just illustrated that correlation does not equal causation! :)

I think contraception in schools should be allowed only not in middle school... that is too young. In Maine I read that they're allowing students as young as 11 receive this service through the school. I myself am currently trying to learn more about this however for a speech I'm doing... so if you know any other information or can tell me where to look that would be great.