<p>So because some parents neglect to be responsible for their own children, people who are responsible are to be denied that right?</p>
<p>No one is denying the right to responsible parents. Obstensibly, this shouldn’t be an issue, because said responsible parents will have children who will either a) talk with them about their forays into sex, b) not get pregnant or c) remain abstinent. </p>
<p>Obviously, it is only irresponsible parents whose children have sex and get pregnant.
<sarcarsm off=“”></sarcarsm></p>
<p>Here’sHoping: because it’s stupid to formulate policy that works only for “best case” circumstances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cheers and whistles. </p>
<p>I also not that there would be less need of Plan B, abortion, etc. etc. etc. if there were more fact-based sex education. Yet another zone where parents decry governmental intrusion.</p>
<p>“Proponents of parental control/notification gloss over the number of bad - and really, really bad - parents out there in order to reach a conclusion that makes them more comfortable with their own lives.”</p>
<p>That is the quote I was responding to. By “responsible” I meant <em>caring</em> enough to want (demand) to be informed/notified. I happen to value the judgment of a parent - even a less-than-perfect parent (as we all are) - more than the school nurse.</p>
<p>Things happen. No one’s life (including my own) has been perfect. But when we start talking about not even notifying parents because of "some* “bad - and really, really bad” parents, I find that scary.</p>
<p>In addition, there are religious ramifications here (I am Catholic). I wonder if it’s parents with a bit of a religious viewpoint that are the most concerned. I would tend to think so.</p>
<p>Oh, oh, I meant “that are the most concerned” <em>about parental notification</em> - not about their kids! No flames, please!</p>
<p>
Do you value the judgment of the incestuous step-father who is the reason the girl is seeking Plan B? Or of his wife, the girl’s mom - who knows? Because, although that’s an extreme example, it’s not as rare as you might think and we’d all wish. That’s one case where your preference leads to a very, very bad outcome. There are others. There are cases where the other option does, too. My point isn’t that there’s a simple, easy answer. It’s that there isn’t, and casting the issue as one that’s black and white is what I think is wrong.</p>
<p>(By the way, I expressed myself poorly in the section that’s quoted (twice) by others. I didn’t mean to suggest that one conclusion makes people “feel good about themselves” but rather that that approach comports with the way their individual family happens to be. I fully agree that for some families, mandated parental notification might be the right thing. I just also think that for some others, it’s a terrible thing. It’s a case of picking the option with the least bad consequences - not just for your family, but for the entire group of families which may be affected by the policy, one way or the other.</p>
<p>Personally, I’m tired of having my rights as a parent taken away because the people in power in my school district believe they know what is best for all children and teenagers. And I’m tired of being told that wanting to hold onto my individual “God-given” right as a parent to raise my child as I see fit means I am uncaring about the plight of the incestuous step-father who is the reason the girl is seeking Plan B, to use your example. As I said previously, there are state and federal laws in place to protect the rights of parents; but don’t look to your school district to inform you of them - they may or they may not. Sometimes their arrogance can be astounding.</p>
<p>
I think that parents who are doing their job really ought to be talking to their kids about the religious or medical/health issues involved before it ever comes up. I assume that the PlanB proposal mentioned in the opening post pertains to high schools - and I honestly think that any responsible parent ought to be having talks with their children about sex, dating, etc. before they enter high school (and keep on talking afterward). </p>
<p>If a teenager knows that their religion promotes abstinance and prohibits contraception – and that child nonetheless engages in sex and then wants contraception – the parent/child relationship has already been breached. The fact that the girl can go to the school nurse for a prescription without her parents finding out isn’t what is getting in the way of parent-child communications – she already made the decision to go against parental/religious wishes when she decided to have sex with her boyfriend. </p>
<p>If we as parents haven’t managed to convey our values to our children by age 14, it’s not going to happen between the ages of 14-17 because of some sort of parental notification law. What will happen is that girls that could opt for contraception won’t – they’ll keep on having sex, but won’t tell any adults about it until they have to because of pregnancy.</p>
<p>I don’t see how your rights as a parent are being “taken away” at all. You don’t have a legal right to be notified about everything, just some things. Contraception doesn’t happen to be one of them, at least not in most states. You do have every right to tell your daughter your views - nothing is taking that away.</p>
<p>I continue to shake my head at the repeated claim that the government failing to force a girl to do something her parents want constitutes government’s denial of anyone’s rights. If a right is “God-given” is it the duty of government to enforce it? Is it the duty of government to make children pay attention to and obey their parents? As far as I’m concerned, that’s taking governmental interference with personal family business too far.</p>
<p>I think there is a flaw in your logic, with all due respect (and I have come to very much respect your opinions, calmom). First of all, do not assume frank talks about sex haven’t taken place in a Catholic family (and why would you assume that?). Yet in spite of this, even Catholics (gasp!) have been known to have sex in high school. Perhaps the girl is fearful of going to her parents, thinking she’ll be chewed out (to say the least). Perhaps she is wrong. If she heads to the nurse, and the nurse sees that the parents have not given permission for this drug, she notifies the parent that the girl has been to the health room. The parents then makes the call how to guide THEIR OWN CHILD. In my case, you just may be surprised what I would decide to do, but please do not assume you know.</p>
<p>kluge: I doubt you’ll ever get it! It’s just something you get, or you don’t, with all due respect.</p>
<p>Question: What is the issue about this service being in the schools? Couldn’t the student still do the same thing without parental consent at Planned Parenthood or a county agency? Or do those organizations have an age minimum?</p>
<p>Hereshoping:</p>
<p>That is an excellent scenario in most cases, and I would hope that it would be the one chosen in the majority of cases. I do not think that Plan B will be dispensed lightly. But I would like to see the possibility of provision in case where parents sign a prior release form and/or the girl is in a family situation where talking to parents is contraindicated, such as abusive family or incest, or cases where the teenager is in group home.
I see Plan B as a limited option, a fall-back position when other options have failed rather than as a first recourse. And I see Plan B being made available through school nurses as being an even more limited option, with parental consent being the more ordinary practice.</p>
<p>Hereshoping:
And what if your daughter doesn’t want you to find out and decides not to go to the school nurse for that reason? Maybe she leaves campus and heads to some private clinic. Or maybe she attempts to buy some sort of drug or home remedy being traded by other students that she thinks will accomplish the same thing? Or, as suggested before, she just hopes that she doesn’t get pregnant, and keeps right on having unprotected sex… or she goes to the local drug store and buys condoms so that the next time she is better prepared.</p>
<p>Or, if she’s really smart - and she knows that you have put that note in her file, maybe she just enlists the help of a female friend without such a note – and the friend goes to the nurse, posing as the one who needs Plan B.</p>
<p>I don’t see how your parental “rights” are being protected at all.</p>
<p>And I still don’t see how you get any parental “right” to know about something if you live in a state where the law says you don’t have that right. There are all sorts of laws that limit what parents have a “right” to do in respect to their children.</p>
<p>I agree, marite, but I would prefer a referral to Planned Parenthood in those cases where the negative home environment has been well-documented. From personal observation, I think schools have their hands quite full already without inserting themselves into these kinds of situations.</p>
<p>Oddly enough, I was just looking at CA’s parental notification laws the other day. You might be surprised what is covered!</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>It is difficult for me to respond to your comments concerning the realities of pregnancy and abortion in society today because we view these issues from such different perspectives. You perceive the discussion pragmatically, taking into account statistics and your observations and knowledge of teens and twenty-year-olds and their behaviors. I dont disagree with your opinions and, in fact, I would agree with most (if not all) of what you say if I viewed this issue solely from a practical perspective.</p>
<p>My focus, however, is philosophical and specifically on what government can do to encourage young people to behave in more productive and less destructive ways. When government policies make it easier for teens to engage in premarital sex and government does this when it shields teens from the consequences of their behavior then the behaviors will become more common rather than less common. Metaphorically speaking, were giving teens all the ice cream they can eat and then we wonder why they eat too much.</p>
<p>I agree that we probably will decrease teenage births if we make abortions and contraceptives more available. Such policies do not, however, decrease the chance that teenagers will get STDs or that they will suffer physical or emotional damage from their sexual choices. Such policies may not even decrease overall teenage births because now more and more teens will engage in sexual activity. Further, alienating parents and daughters, and empowering teenage girls to make autonomous decisions, makes it less likely that girls will make better choices in their lives.</p>
<p>Fifty years ago, America instituted good and important programs to give families financial assistance in difficult economic times, programs that today we refer to as welfare. These programs were intended to be temporary and rarely used. They help families and I’m glad we have them but, for many, welfare became an entitlement that hampered generations of families and encouraged people to make poor life choices. I fear that we are treading this same path with our policies on abortion and contraceptives. No matter how well intentioned our policies are, they are not good policies if they end up as permission slips for self-destructive behaviors.</p>
<p>For millenia, there have been teenagers who have had sex without benefit of marriage. Before legalized abortion, there were girls and women who sought to end their unwanted pregnancies in ways that often cost them their lives.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with you, DRJ, about generational welfare at all. Poverty is a reality. However, I also don’t believe that government assistance has “encouraged people to make poor life choices”. Some have, yes, but for many in poverty, it is a cycle that is very difficult to break, without access to decent educational opportunities, job training, day care etc.</p>
<p>I don’t approve of 20 year olds having three kids, while collecting welfare. In many cases, the plan B, or any method of discouraging teenage pregnancy, should be explored MORE, not less. </p>
<p>Our policies on abortion and contraception prevent millions of unwanted births, which would further tax the welfare system. The people who are anti- abortion are usually the ones who are also anti-government assistance. That argument makes no sense to me though, since millions of unwanted children, who would be born if there was no legalized abortion, would end up on the dole.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is where I disagree. I namy ways, teen pregnancy is a modern problem but not because of anything the government has done. First. the concept of teen and teenagerdom is new. In fact, many societies do not have the concept of adolescence. Even childhood was not a distinct stage of life. Children were just miniature adults.</p>
<p>Young people married much earlier than they do today, so their sexuality was constrained by marriage much earlier than it is. In 18th century NE, young people waited until the girl was pregnant to marry, so there was a lot of what we could call teenage sex. But it was expected that marriage would ensue. And society being far less mobile than today, there was a lot more social pressure exerted on those who did not conform to social expectations. Still, there has been no possibility of doing research on abortion before the 20th century. </p>
<p>From time immemorial, however, teenagers, whether labeled as such or not, have been hormonal. They have not heeded parental advice or danger warnings. They tend to think bad stuff happens to other people (see the news about the QB who rode a motorcycle without a helmet). They are risk-takers and many are heedless of consequences. </p>
<p>Many teens, and these are not the ones likely to go on welfare, but teens from affluent suburbs, are already engaged in the practice known as hooking up. This goes on, needless to say, without the knowledge, much less consent, of their parents. Some may be on some form of contraception, but a lot of it is spontaneous. I doubt that many who engaged in some sexual activity at their proms went to the prom with the intention of having sex. But it seems to be a rampant phenomenon. Some of these kids will tell their parents, some will not.
Do we want those who are scared of telling their parents to risk an unwanted pregnancy? Do we want them to carry the responsibility of a having a child at a young age, without having themselves finishe d their high school education because they may have been irresponsible once or twice? Do we think the consequences commensurate with the degree of irresponsibility (not to mention that these consequences weigh far more heavily on girls than boys, and yet, both acted irresponsibly).
Do we think that if we allow these to carry their child to term and have to assume the responsibilities of adulthood, it will serve as a lesson to other teens? There are girls in my Ss’s high school, some as young as 15 who have children. I don’t think that their presence has curbed the reckless sexual habits of other girls. </p>
<p>Finally, I agree that our current policies have reduced abortions and made those that do occur far more safe. I see Plan B as reducing abortions rather than encouraging reckless behavior. Reckless behavior will continue to happen regardless of the availability of Plan B. It is already happening.</p>
<p>calmom: Everything you say is true but that still does not mean that I am going to give my <em>permission</em> to a <em>school</em> to cut me out of a potentially life-altering decision for my child.</p>
<p>Schools are hell-bent on setting themselves up as “one stop service providers,” as I have seen it phrased. Our local high school is very heavily focused on “mental health” - again, attempting to cut the parent out of the process of determining whether a student is in need of psychological or substance abuse services!</p>
<p>Putting aside any religious objections, I think it’s pretty clear here the ultimate goal of public high schools is to cut out the outdated, traditionally-minded “moral” parent. Believe me, I have had discussions with school personnel regarding such. Their viewpoint is pragmatic and health-focused. I have been looked at as if I had two heads when I attempted to bring in religious and moral dimensions. </p>
<p>I think allmusic’s statement that “I don’t approve of 20 year olds having three kids, while collecting welfare” says it all. Some people think they have the <em>right</em> to tell others, especially impressionable teenagers, how to conduct their lives. Who gave these people the right? Is it because they are “smarter,” more “well-educated,” what? Amazing.</p>