Maine Middle School to Offer Birth Control

07DAD · October 25, 2007, 12:05pm

atomom said:

I see this suggestion as raising two alternatives: making some little girl be a baby sourse for adoptive parents or BC. You seem to acknowledge that the “birth mother” will need healing from that birth. Why isn’t it more humane and preferable to help assist the girl avoid the injury from a birth that is the product of an assault by providing BC? I believe Maine takes the correct and humane position of providing BC and providing her this small amount of choice to avoid becoming a birth mother by assault.

As an aside, if the father is the girl’s dad, brother or close male relative, as is often the case, this baby may have serious problems from birth. There isn’t a line out the door to adopt these babies.

sjmom2329 said:

Go listen to the NPR link. The health services offer condoms but went to patches in addition to condoms. I though posters were anti all BC because it made the assaults more onerous to the girl being assaulted (disease and pregnancy) so that she’d report the abuse. Are you OK with dispensing condoms to the children who request them? The state of Maine and I are.

I think it goes beyond insensitivity to refuse birth control on the premise that if you make the risks to the assaulted girl as great as possible she’ll report the assault.

People who have herpes are diseased under any and all definitions of the word and to subject people to becoming diseased (and capable of infecting others) is misguided and inhumane.

sjmom2329 · October 25, 2007, 1:00pm

I am opposed to providing BC to all junior high age kids, but I would be especially concerned about hormonal methods. But that’s just me. 07DAD I have the feeling that you and I are too different to ever agree on this issue.

07DAD · October 25, 2007, 2:00pm

sjmom2329:

I’ve read the *Dreaded Co-ed Sleepover *thread. You seem to be of the opinion that very few young girls (say 12 and under) are having sex because of their own sexual desires, rather than say peer pressure, boyfriend pressure, status, desire to get out of the home through pregnancy and, sadly, outright assaults. See, we are much closer on certain issues.

I am old enough to recall that when abortion was illegal and the pill and patch didn’t exist, girls still had sex at a young age. I question that the availability of BC is/has changed the frequency of preteen sex from any sourse, but it appears with sex education to make kids aware of BC to have lowered the pregnancy rate for those girls who are sexually active.

You may disagree with my premise that BC doesn’t change the incidence of preteen sex. Then we have little basis for further discussion since we fundamentally disagree. But if we agree that preteen sex doesn’t turn on the availability of BC, what possible reason exists to withhold it from these girls?

sjmom2329 · October 25, 2007, 2:10pm

07, I don’t see any benefit in keeping this going, but I’ll just reiterate my point that I believe the availability of BC to very young girls facilitates/perpetuates sexual abuse.

system · October 25, 2007, 6:33pm

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced only sensible thing to do is for a girl who’s been raped by elder is not BC, not try to fend off her abusers for all we know she must have been intimidated by an elder into submission, the only SENSIBLE THING if parents won’t protect her or the parent is the problem (subsititue live-in boyfriend of the mom if mom turns blind eye), is to SEEK IMMEDIATE PROTECTIVE CUSTODY from authority. Give her BC and send her back to her abuser ? Aren’t you partner in crime ? Are you out of your mind ? The school nurse has the obligation to inform the authorities at once.

As for 07Dad’s question

How about chaste? Or is that not important in this day and age?

Hanna · October 25, 2007, 6:45pm

So the first girl who asks for BC is summarily removed from her home (and generally, as a result, from her school and her friends). This is a good way of solving the distribution dilemma, because after that, the school will not have a second girl asking for BC.

Solving public health problems is way, way harder than it looks. There often isn’t any good solution. If there were real, quality foster options for troubled teens, I’d feel differently about mandating removal from the home. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, the new placement has horrible problems, too, and many of the kids will tell you that they would have subjectively preferred to remain in the original home. (You know where a lot of the kids go in the short term in some cities? Juvie hall, just like criminals.) The end result of the policy you suggest is that kids will work even harder than before to hide the abuse from every authority figure, and they won’t have anyone to confide in at all. AND they won’t have birth control. It’s not a solution.

JHS · October 25, 2007, 6:53pm

Good for you, Hanna. I agree completely.

system · October 25, 2007, 8:07pm

Remember home for the abused girl is far from a nourishing place. Mom’s boyfriend is always waiting for the mom to leave for work. Do you still think the victim should stay home? This is the same mom who turns a blind eye or pretend nothing happened or even accuse her own daughter of seducing the animal. Nothing is perfect, but I still insist that giving BC and sending the victim back to her abuser is no solution. I disagree with both of you.

Furthermore, through education and encouragement from the school, when a victim comes forward it is also the first step toward her own healing.

kristin5792 · October 26, 2007, 12:54am

didn’t read the whole post, sorry if this has already come up:

but how is it possible for a school nurse to write a prescription for birth control? i was unaware that school nurses, or any RNs for that matter, had such privileges. even if the nurse at this maine school were a CNP, wouldn’t he or she at least need an MD to sign off on it?

this whole thing seems stupid (12 year olds having sex? i wonder how physically possible/enjoyable that would be…) and impractical. what a waste of maine’s legislative time and taxpayer money.

sjmom2329 · October 26, 2007, 11:48am

Here’s an update:

<a href=“http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=143117&ac=PHnws[/url]”>http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=143117&ac=PHnws</a>

07DAD · October 26, 2007, 12:13pm

kristin5792 you do need to read it all.

The Maine state health services department has clinics at the middle schools. The parents have to give written consent to have the child receive treatment at the clinic, but that consent which previously just covered condoms was extended to pills and patch, if the student requests them. And, this request will be honored without notice to the parent of the fact that the request was made for BC.

“possible”??? The change to add the pills and patch came after there had been 17 girls of that age show up pregnant. In the US, girls are starting to have their first period prior to age 10 or 11.

In the fairly recent past, the age of puberty was older and the time between puberty and marriage age was very short and there were few edcational opportunites for women. So routinely 14 and 15 year old women gave birth, but were more likely to be married. A quick trip through any cemetary and reading tomb stones from the 1800’s will confirm that lots of these females died in childbirth at those ages and are buried with their husband along with the subseqent wives who were also very young when they married.

Now, most states have a marriage age of 17 or 18, public schools provide disincentives to marrying in HS and females are encouraged by their families to get an education rather than marry young.

Hence the current “chasity” issue, which wasn’t much of a societal problem when puberty and marriage nearly coincided. Girls didn’t have to say “no,” instead they said “I do.” I have read at several websites that there are some religious groups that believe contraception is wrong and that the delay in the age of marriage is against God’s plan. Most states will allow a fairly young girl to get married with her parents’ consent.

However, since most people seem to not want marriages by preteen and mid-teen girls, BC is a very fiscally prudent use of taxpayer money. According to the statistics I’ve found, when sexually active very young girls become pregnant approximately 1/3 have miscarriages, 1/3 abortions and 1/3 give birth. Less than 10% of those who carry to term give the baby up for adoption, the vast majority never finish high school and need public assistance. And, the girls born to these young mothers have a very high probability of becoming very young mothers themselves. Nationally these pregnancies cost taxpayer staggering sums in the social services that are necessary after the child is born.

Also, the prenatal care of these young mothers usually is minimal and inferior to older mothers. The birth weight of babies born to these young mothers is below normal. These children are more prone to have health problems that those born to older women.

07DAD · October 26, 2007, 12:42pm

sjmom2329: welcome back to the fray.

The article states:

Anderson is the district attorney so that seems to address the kid with kid issue we have previously discussed. Apparently ** 1of42** was correct.

Since all that has to be reported is illegal sexual activity, a girl who says I want BC just in case I decide to start being sexually active will not be reported. This seems to me to be a step in the right direction. This should encourage those who haven’t actually started to have sex, but are considering it or who have not ruled it out altogether to get BC before they start. If this is effective, the girl that is subsequently the target of sexual abuse (sex by a family member, teacher, etc) will have protection if she can’t bring herself to report the abuse.

With this explained at an early age in sex education, this could be just what it takes to get the girls to take the step to get protection before sex starts. Unfortunately, it probably will result in the girls that are already being abused and may have veneral disease not seeking health services and medical treatment of their disease.

system · October 26, 2007, 6:04pm

What kind of logic is this, 07DAD ? Why don’t we just give to all girls as soon as they started their period ? Yeah just in case I succumb to peer pressure during sleepover and a big brother decided to “touch” me, I’m protected…hehe.

yourworld · October 26, 2007, 8:00pm

Or when my mother’s live-in boyfriend begin to notice my changing body, I have no fear ?

07DAD · October 26, 2007, 9:03pm

edvest1: said

Amen!

Then the children with parents whose efforts to instill abstinence are successful can decline the BC and all others will be afforded some protection against pregnancy and a near statistically certain life of poverty (and taxpayer assistance) and perpetuation of teen pregnancies. See, everyone wins.

What about with your plan?

yourworld said:

No fear? That’s obscene, even in jest. Have you ever talked to an assault victim? Of course she is going to be terrified, but at least she has a chance not to be assaulted and pregnant.

kristin5792 · October 29, 2007, 9:47pm

hey dad–

very insightful. thanks for the reply. this is definitely an interesting topic. anyone care to comment about its potential spread to other states? countries? schools in ME?

another question for you, dad: how do these girls play for their birth control? if the whole point is for the parents not to know, are the girls expected to pay? is it free?

07DAD · October 30, 2007, 6:54am

kristin5792

Apparantly there is a similar program in Baltimore. Listen to the NPR link at post #130. It has an informative discussion on the Baltimore project and the Maine school board’s decision making process.

You asked:

From the NPR discussion, it seems that this is a health department service that the school board approved since the clinics were set up at several middle schools. I don’t know, but I assume it is like many health services in that it is provided at taxpayer expense.

At my S’s college, there are bowls of condoms everywhere for the taking. At one time, if you were in the US military condoms were free (paid for by the taxpayer). India and China at different times have had programs to address birth control. Germany in WWII had programs to incourage births and Russia used to give awards to women who had large numbers of children.

Also, the NPR discussion is enlightening in that the head of the Baltimore program discusses that he counsels the girls to get their parents involved and that this is successful. I suggest that the point is not so much to have the parents not know, as it is to keep the choice up to the girl since she is the one who may become diseased and pregnant not her parents.

As the Baltimore director’s comments disclose, many parents when faced with the prospect of a now sexually active girl will support birth control rather than have her risk disease and pregnancy. I’m sure it is not any easy decision for some, but if a girl is going to be sexually active she will find an opportunity and the “fall out” of early pregnancy isn’t something most parents are willing to risk for their daughters.

I have tried to get the topic to focus on the tax aspect of the Maine decision. I think it is a secular decision that makes fiscal and public health policy sense.

Hanna · October 30, 2007, 11:32am

“Do you still think the victim should stay home?”

I think there should be case-by-case intervention, not automatic removal from the home (or automatic anything). There is no one-size-fits-all solution here.

You keep ignoring the issue that if girls know they will automatically lose their homes if they report abuse, they will work harder to hide it…so starting tomorrow, under your policy, you aren’t going to be able to identify the girls who would benefit from foster care. I support making an array of assistance available, so that young girls can have a safe space where they can open up to adults they trust. Once trust is built, the clinic can work with the girl to figure out the best way to improve her situation, which might include removal from the home. But what you’re proposing is just going to drive those girls further underground.

zoosermom · October 30, 2007, 12:00pm

I’m not getting the hysteria about this at all. If parents don’t want their children to receive treatment at the clinic, then decline. If the parents choose to trust the clinic, then the treatment is what it is, and I agree completely with Hanna about girls having the opportunity to build trust and perhaps get some help. I really don’t love the idea of young teens having abortions or babies. Not wild about birth control, but it seems the lesser of two evils. If there were no opt-out provision, I’d have a cow, but for other reasons. I have a kid who is visually impaired but receives excellent care. It’s hard for him to explain that to the traveling health van that mandatorily tests kids. They freak this child out every year and I would love to opt him out because the well-meaning ignoramuses cause my family a great deal of stress every single year.

sjmom2329 · October 30, 2007, 2:56pm

ZM, it is my understanding that if you want your child to get Tylenol at this school, you have to sign a waiver. This waiver then allows for the school to prescribe birth control pills, patches or other BC. So, if a parent has concerns about the advisability of giving 11 years olds access to BC, their kids can’t get Tylenol or Tums.

There’s a big difference between giving a school permission to give your child something for a headache or birth control pills.

Maine Middle School to Offer Birth Control

CONNECT WITH US