<p>Having a little trouble following the logic train that runs through NYC these days. Legislate the consumption of large sugared beverages, but hand out morning-after pills in schools. Maybe…just maybe…their concerns for the children’s welfare are just a LITTLE misguided. </p>
<p>My kids’ school won’t even allow them to bring aspirin on campus. Beyond the moral arguments for/against this policy, I think this potentially opens up the school system to HUGE legal issues if any child has medical complications, etc. Scary stuff all around IMHO.</p>
<p>I think it’s a good idea, especially if parents/girls are given the ability to opt out. This is a real problem in urban, inner-city schools, and if money to get these types of things is no longer an issue, you might see a lot fewer young teen pregnancies</p>
<p>“I think this potentially opens up the school system to HUGE legal issues if any child has medical complications, etc.”</p>
<p>Vanishingly unlikely with this particular medication. If a girl gets pregnant, she’ll have a hundred times more progesterone in her bloodstream than she’ll get from the morning-after pill. However, I think you can be confident that the DOE’s lawyers have considered the risks.</p>
<p>“Vanishingly unlikely with this particular medication. If a girl gets pregnant, she’ll have a hundred times more progesterone in her bloodstream than she’ll get from the morning-after pill. However, I think you can be confident that the DOE’s lawyers have considered the risks.”</p>
<p>They advertise that they have the same side effects as the pill. There are potentially serious side effects to the pill including death, blood clots and strokes. Hasn’t stopped me from taking it for over 30 years, but it sure isn’t harmless. Something happens to a girl, I guarantee you that the parents will sue, whether or not pregnancy is more dangerous. I suspect the lawyers don’t care about the risks, as the taxpayers will be paying the bill, and paying for the lawyers to defend the lawsuits.</p>
<p>This taxpayer would rather pay for the morning-after-pill (and any lawsuits) than for generations of unwanted children born to emotionally and economically unprepared teenager mothers.</p>
<p>This taxpayer would rather not pay for either. I take exception anytime the schools/government or whomever takes it upon themselves to replace the parents. Everyone else should not be responsible for paying a dime towards the costs of ANY of the possible options.</p>
<p>Of course DOE lawyers care about risks to the DOE. It’s their entire job. Any settlement would come out of the DOE budget (though I am sure they have insurance). Public sector folks have to worry about their budgets just as much as anyone else – there is no “taxpayer tap” they can just turn on to plug a budget hole in one department. A ruinous settlement would mean job cuts, which would affect the lawyers as much or more than other employees. Unlike the teachers, they aren’t unionized.</p>
<p>Do you know any municipal corporation counsel? I do. It’s a tough job to get, and one that is perfectly possible to lose if you are incompetent at protecting your client.</p>
<p>“Having trouble following the logic train”…
You’re right of course. Logic seems to be missing from SO many decisions these days. I guess rather than logic these days you need to decide on what the end result should be.</p>
<p>Honestly, girls getting pregnant at that age almost always come from broken homes and have other serious issues. I don’t think that a pregnancy would make their lives any easier (obviously) and if there’s a way to avoid it, I’m all for it. In a perfect world, this wouldn’t be necessary. But we don’t live in a perfect world and I’d rather pay for this than welfare for the next 18+ years and I’d rather the girl take this than try to abort herself or become a runaway.</p>
<p>I’m with you, romani. We’ve got a lot of effectively parentless kids in this country. The public schools can try to provide a few slivers of what a real parent would, like guidance and medical care, or the kids can be completely alone. Those are the only two options voters have.</p>
<p>I’m curious how the school system can provide this to minors. I thought as of last December, HHS had ruled that the morning after pill was only available OTC to women 18 or older. If it’s being provided to minors, wouldn’t the school have to have a prescribing physician on staff? Are there nurses who can legally provide medication?</p>
<p>Hanna…there may be a small role for the school to fill a parental void when it comes to guidance or basic medical care if a student is injured but just because a parent can’t or won’t provide something for a child doesn’t mean the responsibility falls to the school. Providing condoms for students is already a controversial choice in many parts of the country to many groups, and the morning after pill goes well beyond that scope. Where would you draw the line? Schools should stick to their charter to educate and, to a certain extent, mentor the students…not become full-time substitute parents.</p>
<p>It’s all for show and won’t change a thing. Fact is many of these girls are following the example set by their mothers and grandmothers. They know that there is NO future for them so they follow the well trodden path of having a baby. And in doing so, finding a very dependable provider for both themselves and their babies. The government becomes their husband. </p>
<p>Well isn’t that a wide brush there, toblin? :rolleyes: </p>
<p>It’s my job (literally) to break cycles. I see it happen every day. I’m sick of people writing off all of these young women with one large brush. It’s pathetic and gets nothing done.</p>