<p>I’d get the claim that this is governmental intrusion into personal affairs if the schools were requiring the girls to take the pills, or requiring them not to talk to their parents about it (or preventing them from doing so), or in any other way compelling action or inaction on anyone’s part.</p>
<p>But they’re not, as far as I know. It’s simply government refraining from forcing a girl who doesn’t want to talk to her parents about something to do so. The parents either have that authority or they don’t; I don’t see how having a governmental agency step in to assert its authority to create a fake parental authority constitutes a step back from the “nanny state.”</p>
No, actually, the government is doing more than refraining. It is also affirmatively providing medicine to girls to prevent pregnancy. If the only goal were to make contraceptives available, the school could give them out free to parents to give to their daughters. The point, obviously, is to make the medicine available directly to the girls so they can avoid discussing it with their parents.</p>
<p>Ah, but then we run into the problem of whether or not minors should be allowed to get ahold of such things. If a minor walks into a store today, I believe that they should be allowed to buy condoms. I don’t see a compelling state interest to do otherwise.</p>
<p>Of course, there’s the problem of whether or not schools should be allowed to, in effect, play the role of middleman.</p>
<p>Thinking about it a bit more, I’ve decided that this doesn’t bother me too much because it’s voluntary. The only thing that does bother me is the fact that it’s clearly a use of tax dollars for something that perhaps is a bit beyond the typical purview of schools, public or otherwise.</p>
<p>But, we could also ask ourselves if society gets more utility from having it or not having it?</p>
Yes, but I think you answer your own question. We’re talking about minor children. If the concept of parental authority means anything, parents - who are, by the way, legally and financially responsible for their minor children - should retain the authority to decide matters like contraception, abortion, and the like.</p>
<p>This is about balancing interests, but I submit that the detriment of making a girl discuss contraception with her family is outweighed by the family benefit that arises from protecting the parents’ authority over their minor child.</p>
<p>hmmmm, as a female high school student, i personally know girls who have had sex and then gotten pregnant. these girls often tried homemade abortions. i know one girl drank bleach, and another tried to use a hanger…</p>
<p>i am completely for emergency contraceptives at school.</p>
<p>So let me get this straight: girls who are already sexually active and are concerned/likely to become pregnant as a result of sex, and who are not currently communicating well with their parents, if denied a safe and proven medication that will prevent a pregnancy from occurring after a sex episode, will all of a sudden decide that they will immediately open up communication with their parents so they can gain access to this medication within 72 hours. Alternatively, they will either have a baby that their parents don’t particularly want to care for, or have an abortion, with or without parental knowledge.</p>
<p>Seems to me the Republicans are keen on increasing the abortion rate.</p>
<p>I’m not sure. That’s the problem. I see where there’s a decently well-founded utilitarian argument in favor of having contraceptives available (e.g. it does more good for society than harm.) But on the other hand, it does represent a bit of an intrusion into parental authority.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I’m not so sure about how much, since many of these products are available to minors at stores anyway. Of course, that leads us to the question of whether or not they should be.</p>
<p>So I suppose I just don’t have a concrete opinion yet, and I’m going to let my disparate thoughts mull around in my head for a while as everyone yells at each other. :p</p>
<p>I have no idea whether your comment was directed at me or not, but permit me to respond anyway.</p>
<p>The topic is not whether children should get contraceptives or abortions. The topic is whether the government should participate. I have no objection if Planned Parenthood, a church, or any other organization decides to get involved and legally render services and advice. I do have a problem with government intrusion in family privacy matters. </p>
<p>There are many reasons I object, including the fact that government has far more power and can impose that power in unforeseen ways; that government funds should not be used unless it is for an essential state purpose; and that government should be careful when it acts because it has immense power to encourage or discourage behavior.</p>
<p>The whole situation seems odd, but if the pregnancy/dropout rates are high in these particular school I can see a definite reason for the gov’t to intervene - they’re trying to save face. EC SHOULD be available to everyone, at any age - WITHOUT parental consent - but it seems weird to have it in schools. If it works though, I suppose it’s fine.</p>
<p>Don’t you think that a decent argument can be made that protection and cultivation of capital (e.g. students) is an essential/compelling state interest? That’s my problem with dismissing it altogether.</p>
<p>I have problems viewing this as rising to the level of a compelling state interest because I think there are other, less intrusive ways to accomplish the same goals. You allude to it yourself when you mention many of these products are available to minors already. I’m not an expert on balancing cases, but I do know that courts typically look at whether the existing schemes to protect minors are sufficient (e.g., the availability of existing services like Planned Parenthood and the ability to go to court where a parent unreasonably withholds consent) versus the interests of the family/parents to make decisions for their minor child. </p>
<p>Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of “parental rights”, perhaps because it sounds like we are trying to possess our children and treat them like property. Society is also increasingly willing to treat children as if they are adults and to give them the authority to make adult decisions. By effectively emancipating our children, we release parents from feeling responsible for their children’s actions. This becomes more and more attractive as we parents lose our ability to know what our kids are doing or to govern their behavior. However, to me, children are not adults and shouldn’t be treated as if they are, for their own protection as well as for society’s good.</p>
<p>It’s interesting how society vacillates between treating younger folks as children and alternatively as adults, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Anyway, I pretty much agree. I think, however, that the argument that otherwise comes up is one of the utilitarian view that it’s a good that outweighs the bad. However, as you pointed out, it’s a further move toward the emancipation of parental authority, and most likely has more costs (and bad externalities) than benefits. </p>
<p>It’s interesting that parents here in Japan have no problem with schools playing caretaker, but also manage to feel responsible for their kids. Then again, I don’t know that we want the level of intrusion into personal and familial lives that the Japanese school system and state will undertake. </p>
<p>I do agree, however, that children should not be treated as adults. It’s counterproductive to the relationship.</p>
<p>I was fortunate enough to grow up in a time when kids were expected to be kids. I agree it’s probably harder to be a kid today because they never know whether society will treat them as children or adults. Fortunately, kids today are also smart and resilient and I think they’ll do great things.</p>
<p>Well, at least they won’t be coal mining. It’s funny how we want our kids to be “adults,” yet we won’t even let them mine for coal anymore! Pshaw!</p>
<p>My grandmother remarked that it wasn’t terribly uncommon in the 40s to see 16 and 17-year-olds working as adults. Today, the closest thing I’ve ever seen is 16-year-old punk kids working at electronics stores, making my purchases ever so painful.</p>
<p>DRJ4, I have no problem with the government insuring such services: you can’t <em>count</em> on a church, Planned Parenthood, etc. being there to step in when a young woman needs it. No one should be held hostage to “community standards” that serve as barriers to such services being offered–or unfortunate geographical location. There are some kids on this board who have to travel more than 60 miles to do something as “no problem” as taking an SAT. </p>
<p>I firmly believe that parent-child communication is the first line of defense, the first line of prevention, etc. etc. etc. I’m also too much of a realist to believe that such will function in much more than half of all families. And perhaps I’m being optimistic.</p>
<p>If we are to support the parent’s right to approve or disapprove, then aren’t we allowing for the possibility that some parents would deny Plan B and let nature take its course, pregnancy or not? Should parents have that much control?</p>
<p>Conversely, if a parent finds out their daughter is pregnant, would we say that the parent has the right to force an abortion?</p>
<p>These are not rhetorical questions on my part, but a sincere effort to promote discussion.</p>