<p>“…that’s not the prevailing view in America anymore. We are a village now.” </p>
<p>I know I am not the only one who finds that statement absolutely chilling.</p>
<p>I think the government should ensure that all out-of-wedlock babies born to high schoolers (this leaves out polygamous Latter Day Saints, since they are married) are raised as Republicans.</p>
<p>Branding might also be appropriate.</p>
<p>Well, I did my share lol 
Minus the branding of course.</p>
<p>I believe statistically that is already a truth, Mini.</p>
<p>Seriously, though, I don’t see it as gov’t interference at all. I see it as an option - not a happy one but still a very good option - for those who have little or no other options. In my opinion, a teenage girl engaged in casual hookups already has some very serious problems at home (could be communication or something more ominous) and I don’t see how that teen could initiate and work through a resolution to all that in the 72 hours or whatever time might be available.</p>
<p>We all would wish that our children told us things of importance. But how many parents know that their kids are hooking up or have friends with privilege? From what I read in the papers, the propblem is rampant. And I would think that a lot of hooking up is spontaneous, i.e, no precautions were taken. If kids are not telling their parents they are hooking up, I don’t see how they would be telling their parents they need Plan B.
So providing it to school nurses is an option, as Latetoschool suggests, not a great one, but better than the most likely alternative, which is an unwanted pregnancy.
As for government inteference, I read that most people on welfare are (white) mothers with young children. I expect a significant proportion of these mothers are teenagers.</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>You seem to think that the state confers parenthood on adults; whereas, I, as most do, believe bearing a child does the job.</p>
<p>Parental authority, philosophically and morally, precedes the state, wouldn’t you agree? The founders would, I suppose.</p>
<p>I think you’ve taken that old Greek’s “Republic” far too seriously.</p>
<p>FountainSiren, if I may (and this may be a bit off Kluge’s point), there is no government - and there will never be ANY government - that can possibly mitigate or dilute any parent’s authority even slightly - not because anyone hands parents said authority, but rather because competent parents assume it and demand it - not by legislation, but instead by estabishing their roles as benevolent dictators, specifically by creating the appropriate environment in the home, as well as by setting clear examples, and by establishing the very clear, open lines of communication, beginning perhaps with babbling nonsense at and cuddling with a brand new baby.</p>
<p>Not only am I not threatened even slightly by the implications of Plan B; rather, I would be somewhat relieved to know that should I become an ineffective parent, or should my child have desperate need of some resource and I was incompetent or unwilling to provide the needed support, she would have some other option. Not a great option. Not one I’d like to see a young woman’s life deteriorate into. But at least there’d be something. And it’s certainly better than being a pregnant teenager.</p>
<p>Washington State has provide Plan B OTC to anyone (including minors without parental consent) since the summer of 2003. <a href=“http://www.go2ec.org/ProfileWashington.htm[/url]”>http://www.go2ec.org/ProfileWashington.htm</a></p>
<p>Apparently there have been no disasters despite 2000 requests (from adults and minors both) being filled every month.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Definitely. I don’t really even think that supposition is necessary in this case. The Founders would certainly have seen the individual, and by proxy, the familial unit, above the state. They feared unnecessary meddling in all citizen affairs, and a program like this probably wouldn’t have sat well with their libertarian leanings.</p>
<hr>
<p>Though, I fear that the term “the Founders” is far too broad a term to really capture the varied opinions held by the individual men at the time. For my own purposes, I’ve begun to doubt its utility as an explanatory device as far as American political thought goes.</p>
<p>
FountainSiren,</p>
<p>I was referring to Hillary Clinton’s village in which government is there to help you raise your children but in return gets to tell you how to do it.</p>
<p>BTW, I do not want to politicize this debate. My use of the term village was not an oblique reference to Hillary Clinton but was intended to incorporate all policies that substitute government policies for parental authority.</p>
<p>Just a question: Would some of you prefer government intervention? I mean, sure, we can all see why the government might take an interest in pulling a child out of a home that endangers his life. But to have the government mandating that a child be raised under X circumstances with Y of this and Z of that seems a bit intrusive to me.</p>
<p>Of course, this swings both ways, and includes gay couples raising children. If the state can allow children to grow up with Michael Jackson, then why not a caring, supportive gay couple?</p>
<p>I can see a case for a compelling state interest, since children are just capital-in-the-making, but how far is too far? Some say that mandated primary and secondary schooling is too far, but I don’t know that I agree. I don’t like the idea of the state compelling people to do anything, but from an economic point of view, forced schooling seems like a good idea.</p>
<p>Perhpas we can be a bit more specific about what possible parental actions/responses we think the government is interfering with here.</p>
<p>Let’s say Plan B was only avialable with a parents permission (I realize someone out there would want to see both parents having to give permission, but let’s not complicate things here anymore than they have to be). Your daughter tells you that Plan A contraception failed (condom broke or forgot to take the pill) and that she doesn’t want to become pregnant. </p>
<p>A. You either agree and most likley accompany her to the doctors and then over to the phramacy. All within 72 hours, mind you.</p>
<p>B. Or you decline for a specific medical reason.</p>
<p>C. Or you are opposed to contraception on philosophical grounds. </p>
<p>D. Or you’re a bit numb from the news and can’t think clearly enough to come up with a decision in the short amount of time you have to work with. However, inaction in such a short time frame is a decision itself.</p>
<p>For a lot of you here, A really would be what happens. B can’t really be helped, there are no reasonable alternatives. D is more a psychological issue (parent is incompetent) and is really another matter.</p>
<p>C is a toughie. If we are for parental choice here, we must allow for the posssibility that the parent would risk forcing a pregnancy on a duaghter that does not want it. Do I have that correct?</p>
<p>These are the alternatives for the parents if parents must give permission. However, if the daughter is worried about C or D, she might chose to stay silent, hope a lot that she doesn’t become pregnant or deal with it if it happens. Do we want that?</p>
<p>Fountainsiren, I was confused when I read your most recent post, as it ascribed to me a sentiment I had not entended to convey - indeed, the exact opposite of what I intended to convey. I reread my prior post:
I then reread your interpretation of my comments:
For the life of me I don’t see how you possibly got from point A to point B. Maybe you could explain, as I am, if anything, even more baffled than before.</p>
<p>Seriously, I don’t think Bloomberg will be able to get his plan through (I’m assuming it still has to be vetted and approved - we have no more info right now). I’m not sure there is any democrat/republican slant to this issue, but there is a religious one. As of now, parents have, by federal law, the right to opt out their children from sex ed classes. That being the case, I do not think public schools would be allowed to dispense any kind of drug pertaining to anything to do with reproduction in a public high school. Perhaps at this point he’s floating the idea, or he’s just counting on no one raising an objection. I doubt if that will be the case.</p>
<p>The state interferes so much already in what many would consider to be parental decisions. For example, if we were to take a vote, most parents at my Ss’ school would be against taking the MCAS. But the state (local, federal) has mandated that all students must take high-stakes tests.
The state also requires vaccinations before children can be enrolled in schools,
The state requires the wearing of seat belts, helmets, etc… Why then protest at merely making Plan B available? Making it available, mind you, not requiring it to be used. </p>
<p>Oh, and let’s not forget what is recommended to all pre-pregnant women! That is the nanny state with a vengeance, no?</p>
<p>Dadguy,</p>
<p>E) They support her through her ordeal, like parents.</p>
<p>just another possibility–I’d say the most likely one.</p>
<p>
Plan B dispensed in public schools without parental knowledge or approval allows girls to make their own decisions. It doesn’t matter what the range of possible decisions is, what most parents would do, or what seems fair. Policies like this interfere with families by making each child autonomous, so they no longer need family assistance or guidance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, a HIGHER one that should not be abrogated by the good intentions of the bureaucratic-authoritiesspecifically in the case of those the State itself regards as non-adults, i.e. children; something of a deal between a minor and the State behind the back of the parents, or under the table, as it were.</p>
<p>FWIW, I also support parental permission to play on the Varsity Soccer team… I believe most do, often for medical reasons but always good reasons.</p>
<p>I guess I don’t understand the argument here.<br>
Those who say parents should be informed and involved and that their children would come to them…well those kids WOULD go to their parents with an issue like this. So even if the drug were given out, these kids would probably still talk to their parent.</p>
<p>For those kids who wouldn’t want their parent to know…they just won’t get treated and will hope there is not a pregnancy, or will deal with trying for an abortion later. I would imagine (don’t have stats to back me up) that the risks in a teen pregancy or abortion are probably as high or higher than the usage of this drug.</p>
<p>Of course I would prefer that no teens be sexually active as I don’t think they have the maturity or the resources to deal with the consequences that do happen. So, since we live in the real world, I would rather a girl be able to receive birth control with as little “red tape” as possible and back up birth control with education. I live in the south and they have taken sex ed out of the schools!!</p>