Emergency Contraception in High Schools

ariesathena · June 20, 2006, 3:15pm

Not really. See, the flip side is true: the proposal removes the decisions of the parents - their choices regarding their children. If they don’t want their children accessing medical care without their knowledge, they now have that right. You would take that away from them.

As a philosophical matter, I disagree. Parental notification is only a minor reduction in the “free choice” of children who, IMO, should not have the free choice anyway. 14-year-olds are ill-equipped to make those kinds of decisions without their parents, and, IMO, it’s detrimental to not only allow parents to not be involved, but to tacitly encourage parental non-involvement via gov’t action.

The free choice that is reduced by this action - the ability of parents to know about their kids and know what medications they are taking - is severely, severely restricted.

There was a study that came out which showed that most parents (in the high 80% range) thought that their high-school age kids were not having sex, while most of them were.

I cannot help but agree with FountainSiren - either we treat kids like kids or we treat them like adults. If high schoolers need parental permission to attend a field trip or be late to class, they should at least need parental notification when the school unilaterally administers medication.

It’s not about “forcing” the girl to do anything - it’s about the fact that, when the choice is between parents and the government, thinking that the parents are the ones better able to make medical decisions for their children, with full knowledge of the family medical history, the child’s psychological make-up, and the values which the family imparted.

OpiefromMayberry · June 20, 2006, 3:18pm

zoo,

Sorry I just looked again at your second post and it reminds me of Stan’s mom on southpark. You vent this laundry list of everything you see that is wrong with the situation. You do take on the sky is falling approach here, at least to me as you over worry the idea.

You don’t like the mayor so it sounds like you think everyone involved are just idiots and haven’t planned or thought anything out. Probably not even the mayor’s idea to begin with. The main idea is creating another source for kids who need help…period. Maybe stepping into planned parenthood isn’t a good idea for them. Maybe drinking bleach isn’t as well.

Maybe go back and look at the situation with someone whom you do like in government. Maybe ask what is it they are trying to accomplish? It almost seems as you view it as competition with PP where you’ve spent 18 years as you’ve said a couple of times. I would think that PP would support another option for kids in need. Am I wrong?

zoosermom · June 20, 2006, 3:26pm

Sorry I just looked again at your second post and it reminds me of Stan’s mom on southpark. You vent this laundry list of everything you see that is wrong with the situation. You do take on the sky is falling approach here, at least to me as you over worry the idea.

That is called “expressing an opinion.” I was not rude, I expressed an opinion with which you disagreed and you chose to bully and call names. Again, others both disagreed and agreed with me. None chose to be ignorant as you chose to be. Please don’t respond to me again. I am not interested in anything you have to say and will not accept being responded to again in such a condescending, arrogant and disrespectful manner.

kluge · June 20, 2006, 3:35pm

A lot of thoughtful posts here. Ariesathena, I guess where I part ways with you and Fountainsiren is the idea that there should be a clear demarcation between 'childhood" and “adulthood.” Legally, that line (for most purposes) is 18. One of my sons just turned 18. I didn’t notice much of a difference. We recognize graduated levels of personal rights and responsibilties as kids age from infancy to adulthood in many spheres, public and private, based on the practical recognition that a 17 year old is fundamentally different than a 7 year old. So I can’t agree with the sentiment that “either we treat kids like kids or we treat them like adults”. All three of my “kids” - 16, 18 and 20, are “kids” sometimes and “adults” other times (particularly my 16 year old daughter.) I think it would be a mistake to treat them like kids all the time, or like adults all the time (even the 20 year old.) Life is complcated. Sometimes there just isn’t an easy, clear answer you could write on the back of a napkin.

mladyd · June 20, 2006, 3:39pm

I am entirely behind contraception (emergency and otherwise) being available to anyone who is sexually active, regardless of age and with complete confidentiality. That means I support minor children having access without parental notification. And yes, I do see how that might seem contrary to things like needing my permission to go on a field trip or play a sport. However, someone else’s consensual sex life is not something I can control…even if it’s my own child’s.

That said, I don’t see any reason to have BC available in public schools. There are better places to do this where complete health services will be available. And I believe anyone who is sexually active should be responsible enough to seek these places out. It’s not like they are hiding and schools can always refer the students there if need be.

As always, this is just my opinion.

mkm56 · June 20, 2006, 3:49pm

There seems to be strong arguments both ways. I mostly agree with mladyd, but I really don’t know how hard it is for students who may not drive to “seek these places out”. Also, as a previous poster stated, many times the county health clinics and other support services are not located in the safest of areas. Perhaps students do work these things out much easier and more often than I might imagine. My main concern is that I would not want to see young girls become pregnant and due to difficulties of getting service, not seek help until their options are much more limited.

zoosermom · June 20, 2006, 3:59pm

"but I really don’t know how hard it is for students who may not drive to “seek these places out”. Also, as a previous poster stated, many times the county health clinics and other support services are not located in the safest of areas. "

This is NYC, it’s not that hard to get around. Also, public schools aren’t always located in the safest of neighborhoods.

OpiefromMayberry · June 20, 2006, 4:04pm

I’m rude?

OK.

mkm56 · June 20, 2006, 4:08pm

zoosermom,
Sorry, I was looking at this issue as one not just particular to NYC.

ariesathena · June 20, 2006, 4:10pm

Kluge,

I do not fundamentally disagree with your stance. I do disagree, however, with its application. While you (and most parents) grant children more rights and freedoms as they age, that is your perogative, not the government’s. Under this proposal, it would be the gov’t perogative to tell you that contraception and medication (that can have substantial side effects) would be available to your minor child at the age of 14, without your consent. If you want to let your 14-year-old take Plan B, fine - but the state should not remove that from you.

The thing is, high school does start at 14. Some people were 13 when they started high school. I think we all would agree that there is something fundamentally different between an 18-year-old and a 13-year-old. You can say things about 17-year-olds who are seniors, but that doesn’t change the fact that 13-year-old freshmen would have access.

The bright-line rule is, IMO, very effective and good in the school situation. We require parents to educate their children or send them to public school; in return, we give parents a lot of control over what happens there, until the child reaches the age of majority. At least at my high school, until 18, you literally needed your parent’s permission for everything - even coming into homeroom late. I see no reason to move from a very logical, workable rule to one which is equally as “bright-line” (i.e. the second you enter high school, instead of when you are 18) but has much larger consequences.

Analogy to alcohol. It is, generally, illegal before the age of 21; however, it is legal in your own home, administered by you, for any age. Parents have the ability to, in their own home, set limits on alcohol use. They can choose to introduce it to the child earlier than 21, or they can choose to tell the kid to wait until they grow up. Now, a lot of kids will drink anyway, but we would be appalled if the gov’t used that as a reason to have alcohol available in schools, so kids could learn to use it responsibly.

Just my gut, but you don’t go over parents’ heads like this.

OpiefromMayberry · June 20, 2006, 4:12pm

“None chose to be ignorant as you chose to be”

:) Is it the south park reference (stan’s mom) that bugs you?

I see stan’s mom as a caring, loving parent who just goes a bit over the deep end when she see something she preceives as wrong in society when it involves her kids. She is not any less of a parent for caring, it’s just that she is willing to go to extreme measures for her beliefs.

As far as calling me ignorant I understand. I don’t agree with you of course. :)

zoosermom · June 20, 2006, 4:21pm

"Is it the south park reference (stan’s mom) that bugs you?

I see stan’s mom as a caring, loving parent who just goes a bit over the deep end when she see something she preceives as wrong in society when it involves her kids. She is not any less of a parent for caring, it’s just that she is willing to go to extreme measures for her beliefs. "

Wow, you’re a jerk too. FIrst of all, I’ve never seen South Park. Second of all, how utterly spectacularly condescending of you to post what you just did. “Less of a parent?” Where DO you get your audacity? I’m not sure why you singled me out because lots of posters have positions as “extreme” as mine, but you obviously get off on it. Sick and bizarre.

Dadguy · June 20, 2006, 4:25pm

aires,

No, it’s not exactly like forcing a daughter to go down to the fertilization clinic but the results are the same. In the Plan B situation, the sex act has already occurred. While I think we agree underaged individuals should not have sex, it’s water over the dam.

But there still is time to prevent the pregnancy from occurring. If the parent has the option to withhold Plan B even though there is no medical reason to do so, that is taking what was a foolish act and escalating it into something that could be considered tragic (depending on your defintion of the word) or at the very least, something that quite doesn’t seem right.

I see some posters saw the risk of something like this occurring and advocated requiring notification over requiring permission. That’s a bit more sane, if there’s a vote to be had here between the two, although I see issues with that too.

I think emerald’s release form is a great idea!

OpiefromMayberry · June 20, 2006, 4:37pm

Maybe you should give the show a bit of a look. It pretty well known and pokes fun at everybody. Usually there’s a reasonable point to be made by the end.

You are flying into a rage for no reason what so ever. I have not singled you out, but I am responding to your shots at me. While you haven’t used as strong of language with others here as you have with me, you’ve dismissed completely any other opinion but your own. You’re right, everybody else has it wrong that doesn’t see it your way.

It’s Ok to you to snipe and pick at other’s thoughts on the issue from transportation problems and what not, but to question your rationale for having things a certain way… well, them’s fighten wurds.

ariesathena · June 20, 2006, 4:48pm

Um… I advocate notification, so please read a bit more carefully.

I fundamentally disagree with you. If a girl has unprotected sex, the logical outcome, minus some deliberate act, is an 8% chance of pregnancy. If a girl has unprotected sex and she cannot access Plan B, if she cannot take it for medical reasons, or if it fails, the consequence is identical. I fail to see, then, how the parent’s refusal to allow her to take it somehow “elevates” the situation. It doesn’t. The situation was “elevated” when she had unprotected sex (that phrase, here, includes b.c. failure), NOT by the anything the parents may do or not do. The situation immediate before parental refusal (i.e. 8% chance of pregnancy) is exactly identical with the situation after parental refusal (i.e. 8% chance of pregnancy). The parents are not “making” her pregnant - that was what her boyfriend did the night before (not to put too fine a point on it).

The natural, logical consequence of sex is a chance of pregnancy. Our society tends to forget that.

Some of what I’ve been skirting but have not discussed is the fact that a lot of teens have no idea how these medications work. There is the issue, supra, of increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. There is also an increased risk of blood clots, problems with blood pressure, and depression. Furthermore, many people - high schoolers included! - believe that preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is abortion and therefore murder. The parents and a priest are the best people to discuss this with a child, NOT the school counselor with her own agenda. You can hate that belief, but if she holds it, she is the one who has to live with her actions for the rest of her life. There are people who would prefer pregnancy to even the chance of destroying a fertilized egg. Do you really think that the school nurses will take such objections seriously? Do you think they will even explain how the morning after pill functions? Health, religion, morality - quintessential non-gov’t functions. Sorry.

zoosermom · June 20, 2006, 4:48pm

It’s Ok to you to snipe and pick at other’s thoughts on the issue from transportation problems and what not, but to question your rationale for having things a certain way… well, them’s fighten wurds.

Fight and pick? No. I reminded the poster that this is NYC, which has different transportation options than less urban areas. There was nothing snipey about it. Find one example of me picking a fight or dismissing anyone. Or sniping. That did NOT happen. Except with you because your first post to me was so far beyond the pale.

Dadguy · June 20, 2006, 5:04pm

I need a fact check here. I thought that Plan B is something that works to prevent the fertilization of the egg to begin with. Is that right or not?

Yes, I recognize that some people believe that any type of contraception is wrong, so I’m not trying to refute you there, aries, just wanted a clarification.

mkm56 · June 20, 2006, 5:12pm

“Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy.”
<a href=“go2planb.com”>go2planb.com;

OpiefromMayberry · June 20, 2006, 5:12pm

ariesth,

“Not really. See, the flip side is true: the proposal removes the decisions of the parents - their choices regarding their children. If they don’t want their children accessing medical care without their knowledge, they now have that right. You would take that away from them.”

So if the child does nothing because of the consquence of dealing with the parents, what are we left with? Every year we read of kids giving birth without their parents even being aware of the pregnacy.

My point is not a perfect solution, my point is it’s just another way to deal with the problem. Is it fair to the parents rights? no probably not, we would agree on this. However, is it the parent’s problem or their daughter’s?

The parents are embarassed, the daugther is pregnant. The assumption is also being made that all parents are like us and would deal with this situation in a thoughtful,reasonable manner. We all tend to see the average parent as ourselves because that’s how we see ourselves.

Where I live 14 and 15 year old girls were getting pregnant to move out from home in the projects. The government would set them up with their own places and give them money to live on. The more kids, the more money. They wouldn’t finish school, never have employment and their babies would have babies. Maybe a program like this would at least change a few of their minds. Maybe not.

“As a philosophical matter, I disagree. Parental notification is only a minor reduction in the “free choice” of children who, IMO, should not have the free choice anyway. 14-year-olds are ill-equipped to make those kinds of decisions without their parents, and, IMO, it’s detrimental to not only allow parents to not be involved, but to tacitly encourage parental non-involvement via gov’t action.”

I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but the horse has left the barn at this point. The kid is sexually active, a free choice has been made with or without parent consent. Since in this situation time is critical, waiting to talk it over morphs into something else. Don’t get me wrong, as a parent I would be hurt if this happened to me, for sure. I’d want to know, who wouldn’t? However, how I am told matters too. If my daugther is forced by law to tell me, did “she” really tell me? What relationship do we have?

“The free choice that is reduced by this action - the ability of parents to know about their kids and know what medications they are taking - is severely, severely restricted.”

Yes, I agree, but whose body is it at this point? Sexual relations have occurred. I look at it as just another (repeat not the only) option for someone in need. I would support it even at my detriment(loss of a parental right).

“There was a study that came out which showed that most parents (in the high 80% range) thought that their high-school age kids were not having sex, while most of them were.”

What century was that done? (kidding don’t take it personal. People have been having premarrital sex for more than a little while.)

Dadguy · June 20, 2006, 5:15pm

Thanks mkm 8)

Emergency Contraception in High Schools

CONNECT WITH US