I am sorry but this is crazy. The school board in Portland, Maine has lost their minds.
The Portland school board on Wednesday approved a measure allowing middle-school students to gain access to prescription birth control medications without notifying parents.
The proposal, from the Portland Division of Public Health, calls for the independently operated health care center at King Middle School to provide a variety of services to students, including immunizations and physical checkups in addition to birth-control medications and counseling for sexually transmitted diseases, said Lisa Belanger, an administrator for Portland’s student health centers.
All but two members of the 12-person committee voted to approve the plan.
The school principal, Mike McCarthy, said about 5 of the school’s 500 students had identified themselves as being sexually active.
The school board has no right to go over the heads of parents like this. These are minors, and a school should not have the power to give prescription medicines to a minor without the permission of parents. Much like my support for parental notification for abortions for minors, it is morally wrong to usurp a parent’s rights in this manner. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s a vertical drop into oblivion here. The state is within its rights to mandate things like inoculation before a child can attend school, but these things are obtained with the participation of the child’s parents. This case just invalidates the parents – why bother have them then?
Decisions like this repulse me. They are wrong. They are wrong-minded. They violate families. It’s nanny-statism at its worst.
“Much like my support for parental notification for abortions for minors, it is morally wrong to usurp a parent’s rights in this manner.”
He’s my problem with these laws. What if the parents are the problem? If the family is functional, you don’t need laws like that. If the family is dysfunctional, the government shouldn’t make it worst for the kids.
First, they’ve been handing out condoms at the school since 2000.
Second, guess what?
Some of us aren’t creepy jerks, so we probably won’t have to worry about our daughters getting birth control without our knowledge.
In other words, rational people – that is, most people – will take care to teach their children about being safe and will, if necessary, go ahead and get prescription birth control for them.
Since there are many people backward in this country, I’m glad that some schools are taking these steps, so that girls with bad parents can still be taken care of.
Third, I’d prefer parents “rights” being violated every day of the week if it means less teenage parents. Schools act in loco parentis. Schools provide on-site health care for obvious reasons. It’s schools that have to deal with teenage pregnancies.
The program is an opt-in only program, meaning kids whose parents don’t sign a permission form don’t have access.
It seems to me the only people paranoid about teens getting contraception or healthcare access are people whose kids would probably not be able to talk about sex with.
When I was in high school back in the 70’s, my girlfriend’s doctor prescribed birth control pills to her without telling her parents. That action probably saved everybody (parents included) a great deal of grief.
oliver, the only person who has lost his mind is you. this post of yours is incredibly ignorant. the portland maine school district is just doing what others are doing. in fact, the portland school district based its program on a similar (and very sucessful) program in baltimore that has been in effect for years. do a little research next time.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.contraception19oct19,0,4551071.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout
Oliver, is this triangulating like you do with the whole Bill Cosby thing? You sounded like Malkin there for a second. Learn the facts, then jump the gun.
Hmmmm. We know that abstinence only programs don’t work. But what about this program? From the article cited by brif:
It’s also noted in the article that prescriptions are not given out no questions asked. Students requesting birth control are first sent to a counselor who talks with the student.
Like it or not, as Jesse points, out when parents fail their children or are absent altogether, it is the responsibility of the government to make sure that options are available for children who need them. The state is not promoting sex. It’s promoting health, safety and well-being.
As noted above, I understand that the decision came from a set of facts in which the parents were the problem. It has been portrayed in an unfortunate light, perhaps inevitably. I think that this was a case where public officials made the choice they felt was right under the circumstances knowing they would have to take the lumps.
“It’s nanny-statism at its worst.”
This is just mindless recitation of right-wing talking points. “Nanny-statism”? Oliver, if giving kids access to birth control and sexual counseling reducing teen pregnancy, that actual reduces the need for nanny’s altogether. Doesn’t it?
“It’s nanny-statism at its worst.”
This is just mindless recitation of right-wing talking points. “Nanny-statism”? Oliver, if giving kids access to birth control and sexual counseling reduces teen pregnancy, that actual reduces the need for nannys altogether. Doesn’t it?
You are asking, in some cases, that the girl request her rapist for permission for birth control.
I have a daughter. She is 10, and she is a natural flirt.
I would hope that she will ask me about birth control if she sees the need, and I would be willing to make arrangements without telling my wife if need be (hopefully this won’t be the case).
They are having an outbreak of pregnancies at the school, so it’s clear that the parents are not doing their job, and a 13 years old with a baby is a bad, bad thing.
Sorry Oliver you are just plain wrong. The current system isn’t working: “Portland’s three middle schools had seven pregnancies in the last five years, said Douglas Gardner, director of Portland’s Health and Human Services Department.”
So the School Board acted to prevent more pregnancies. Smart decision and widely supported in these parts!!
I have to side with several here and admit that I think you’re wrong on this one Oliver. I think that in a day and age where a large number of children aren’t getting the support or even education from their parents and schools about sex that measures like this are quite necessary. I have to say that a lot of teen pregnancies don’t have to come to term and probably shouldn’t because kids at a young age simply shouldn’t be raising a child. Parents of that child might disagree with that, but that doesn’t force them to help raise the child either. There are two people who deserve to have a say in whether or not a pregnancy is terminated, and that’s the daddy and the mommy. End of story. No government intervention, no parental notification.
With birth control, this is even an easier answer. Giving the option for young girls to apply for a prescription through school(provided an actual doctor is making the prescriptions and ensuring that the particular med of choice isn’t going to wind up harmful) is a good option for those kids that don’t want to admit to their parents that they are sexually active. The reason is because it helps prevent the necessity for even considering an abortion, by applying contraception intelligently.
The one thing that nobody seems to have addressed and which is a major issue affecting teens is the rate of which they are getting STD’s.
The pill doesn’t prevent that.
I also think our host is overreacting, but I worry a bit about the manner and expertise a middle school can bring to the issue of birth control. The pill is a very difficult drug and different varieties act differently with different women. Is the middle school offering medical advice as well, or just dispensing whichever pill is the most economically feasible? How much of the job of Planned Parenthood can one middle school do?
Agreed, Jay, but teaching “Save yourself for marriage” also doesn’t prevent that–because hormones are a powerful and single-minded beast.
I am curious as to whether a more comprehensive sex education program is being instituted in addition to the pill distribution.
He’s my problem with these laws. What if the parents are the problem?
I heard this on the radio last night and my first reaction was “Good.” Our local middle school was involved in a scandalous “sex-club” a couple of years ago-not exactly approved extra-curricular activities-so anything that can at least reduce pregnancy and/or STDs can’t be a bad thing. Plus, I think a majority of kids would use birth control if they had it.
Agreed, Jay, but teaching “Save yourself for marriage” also doesn’t prevent that–because hormones are a powerful and single-minded beast.
Especially when some kids are using the work-around that oral or anal don’t really count and therefore can claim to still be abstinent.
The current system isn’t working, so its okay to violate parental rights? Give me a break. It is just wrong for a child – a child – to be given prescription medicine without parental permission. When you were a kid, who knew your medical history – you or your parents? You think its remotely rational to ask a kid what his or her allergies are? Would you allow a school to approve cosmetic surgery for a child too? Of course not. I hate when I express my honest opinion on these issues – that parental rights should not be violated – that I get accused of “triangulating” or whatever. Give me a break.
On the parental notification issue, it is not right to violate all parental rights because of the very narrow possibility of parental involvement. The question we have to ask is, in the larger sense do we enforce all parental rights at the possible pain of a very small number? I have to say yes. There simply is no wiggle room for the state to give minors medical procedures without the permission of their parents.
Agreed, Jay, but teaching “Save yourself for marriage” also doesn’t prevent that–because hormones are a powerful and single-minded beast.
Well I’m not an advocate of abstinence only sex education. That being said, I am also not opposed to the teaching (or stressing) of abstinence as part of sex ed. While it doesn’t have to be a “Wait until you’re married” situation, we can at least inform kids that if they can, they should wait until they’re more responsible to deal with the ramifications of their choices – ie, pregnancy or an STD.
Also, I think it is a mistake to start talking about hormones and how kids are just so horny they’re going to be screwing no matter what. It’s dangerous because it reduces us as humans. Humans have the ability to think rationally. That’s what separates us from the animals. It is the reason why we can’t just grab a woman on the street and start humping away because we’ve got the urge. We shouldn’t resign ourselves to, “Well, kids are just going to do it anyway, so…..”
Oliver,
The kids cannot go to this clinic without parental permission. So while the parents don’t get notified in the case of BC pills, they have to be OK with it in the first place or they wouldn’t sign off on their daughters using it.
Would you allow a school to approve cosmetic surgery for a child too?
Well, I guess it depends on how butt-ugly they are. Judging from my own high school experience, it would have been a public service.
Humans have the ability to think rationally.
Yes, but teenagers don’t, necessarily. That rational part of the brain (frontal lobe) doesn’t really develop til later.
Yes, they need approval to go to the clinic. Shouldn’t they need it for, again, a prescription?
There simply is no wiggle room for the state to give minors medical procedures without the permission of their parents.
Oliver: This is an opt-in program. The parents are by nature in control of the access.
Jay: Yes, humans have the ability to think rationally. And the ones with the strength or conviction to think rationally when faced with a sexual situation probably don’t end up with unwanted pregnancies or STDs. Programs like these are for the rest of the population.
Society has a vested interest in offering backup measures for those who don’t meet the high moral standards that have been set for sexual conduct, instead of simply folding its arms and saying “that’s what you get” when a teenage pregnancy occurs.
When you use terms like “nanny-statism” and rhetoric that resembles a FoxNews lead in (”Parents Under Attack!!!”), you deserve to get called on it… sorry.
And when it is actual real nanny-statism it needs to be called out. Parents are opting in to the program, not to the dispensation of prescription drugs (frankly, I don’t even know how its legal).
oliver, you obviously did not read the baltimore sun article. there is no slippery slope, violation of parental rights, or “wiggle room” here. the law is very clear and specific on this issue. minors have the right to access and confidentiality with regards to contraception. the law was created so that it would be an exception to normal health care for minors. again, please do some research on these issues in the future, so far all you’ve contributed is hyperbole and moral grandstanding.
“The pill doesn’t prevent that.”
Yeah but condoms reduce the risk. So to does counseling which any student coming in for birth control is required to receive, at least in Baltimore and I would hope in the Portland program as well. The point being is that a child might come in thinking about sex — whether because of their “hormones” or peer pressure or whatever — and then find out more rational information through the required counseling.
Let’s face it, there are conservatives out there who don’t even want to TALK about sex. Indeed, for many of them, abstinence only programs are a way to avoid having a rational, reasonable discussion about the emotional and physical consequences of sex, some of which are definitely not healthy.
If students are having or planning to have sex, offering them the option of birth control also opens the opportunity to speak with them about the soundness of their choices and hopefully educate them about the consequences. What Oliver derides as “Nanny-statism” is actually sound public health policy.
And as a word of advice, Oliver, when you find yourself on the same side as Sean Hannity on an issue like this, it’s time to pause and think a little more.
You’re mistifying, Oliver. You love Cosby right? Well you should love this, too! This places the burden on parents to talk to their kids about sex, responsibility, and control, instead of abandoning them to the world’s vices. If as a parent, you fail to do these things, well thank God kids will at least have the chance to act responsibly, their parents’ idiocy notwithstanding.
Re: Hannity, a stopped watch is right twice a day.
Do you guys not see anything wrong with a child getting prescription medicine without parental consent? Take the pregnancy prevention out of it.
I’m on Oliver’s side with this.
I’ve been hearing about it on the news during my commute but I’ve not been following it closely enough to know all the specific details. So, that’s my “I know just enough to be dangerous” warning.
I do think the school nurse did exactly the right thing in bringing the issue up. She’s got students coming to her with a health issue and it would have been wrong of her to ignore it. She was correct to say “Here’s a problem. We should figure out how we want to handle it.”
But no way do I think that the correct answer is to pass out the pill to 12-year-olds. For a whole host of reasons.
- As Oliver repeatedly points out, these are prescription medications. They aren’t over-the-counter cough drops. Access requires a doctor’s prescription because they are best equipped to determine what medication is best for you given your ailment, medical history and potential interactions with other medications you are on. 12-year-old’s don’t know enough of their own history to provide appropriate info.
- This medication in particular is to enable a person to engage in a particular activity. One which the parents may not want them engaging in. How can you require a parental permission form before the school allows your 16-year-old participates in sports, but not before the school allows your 12-year-old to have sex?
- In Maine it is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of, uh, 14 (if I recall one detail I did hear correctly). Yet a public institution passes out birth control to kids several years younger than that? I’m looking forward to someone suing the school for aiding and abetting statutory rape.
Yes, there are bad parents out there. Yes, in some cases a parent may be sexually abusing the child and is the very reason they would need birth control.
But there are ways to deal with those situations that don’t require the school completely trampling all over parents rights and responsibilities.
What next? Is the school going to decide that my kid will sneak out of the house and go to a party anyway, so they might as well put a bar in the cafeteria? All of the same excuses: the kids are going to do it anyway so might as well make sure it’s done safely, parent’s objections be damned.
“- This medication in particular is to enable a person to engage in a particular activity.”
No, kids can and are engaging in sex whether they have birth control or not. I think it’s better they have birth control if they are going to do it anyway, why don’t you?
“What next? Is the school going to decide that my kid will sneak out of the house and go to a party anyway, so they might as well put a bar in the cafeteria?”
Except birth control is health care and alcohol is the opposite, you were right on there.
“As Oliver repeatedly points out, these are prescription medications. They aren’t over-the-counter cough drops. Access requires a doctor’s prescription because they are best equipped to determine what medication is best for you given your ailment, medical history and potential interactions with other medications you are on. 12-year-old’s don’t know enough of their own history to provide appropriate info.”
Prescription medications require a doctor making sure that the medication takes in to account the person’s medical history. If they can’t figure out that medical history the doctor is not ethically allowed to prescribe anyway.
Programs like these exist because many parents aren’t equipped to deal with their child’s sexual questions. For the most part, kids with good parents aren’t going to be requesting birth control, because they delay sex until later and are more likely to use birth control. For the rest who aren’t lucky enough to have such parents, school programs are the best way to deal with the problem.
You don’t remove the rights of all the parents because some parents do a shit job.
Sean D. Martin: “This medication in particular is to enable a person to engage in a particular activity.”
Enlightened Liberal: “No, kids can and are engaging in sex whether they have birth control or not.
You missed the point I was making. Which is that this particular drug is not to cure a disease or heal an ailment that the person already suffers from. It is for making a particular activity “safer”.
The argument that kids will be kids so we might as well not try to control their activities puts the children in charge of the world.
Enlightened Liberal: “If they can’t figure out that medical history the doctor is not ethically allowed to prescribe anyway.
Excellent. Then that solves to problem right there. Since doctors aren’t mind readers they would be unable to figure out a medical history without info from the patient, and I seriously doubt any 12-year-old would be able to accurately complete a med history form. So no doctor would be able to prescribe without getting input from the parent. QED.
Enlightened Liberal:“Programs like these exist because many parents aren’t equipped to deal with their child’s sexual questions. … kids with good parents aren’t going to be requesting birth control”
OK, then. If THAT is the problem then let’s deal with THAT problem. When a kid comes in for BC pills, instead of sending the kid to counseling lets instead take it as an indicator that the kid’s parents aren’t equipped and send the parents to counseling. Then they will be equipped to be “good” parents and their kids are less likely to request BC pills.
Same result (less pre-teen sex, fewer pre-teen pregnancies) and instead of cutting the parents out they’ve been included in. With the bonus of now the parents are better equipped to deal with other kid-related issues that will come up in later teen tears. “Teach a parent to fish…”
“Well I’m not an advocate of abstinence only sex education. That being said, I am also not opposed to the teaching (or stressing) of abstinence as part of sex ed.”
And people who support the teaching of condoms also support the teaching of abstinence. However, we don’t want abstinence only sex ed.
“Do you guys not see anything wrong with a child getting prescription medicine without parental consent? Take the pregnancy prevention out of it.”
Okay, imagine the daughter in question needs medication for strep throat. Should the doctor be allowed to give her prescription medicine without parental consent? Hell yeah. Medical issues should be left up to doctor and the patient.
Obviously most parents would want to know, and most kids would tell them. But you shouldn’t force the kids tell their parents if they don’t want to.
And yes, they will have a doctor on staff, it’s not like the lunch lady is handing out birth control pills with the lunch special.
C.S.Strowbridge: “Okay, imagine the daughter in question needs medication for strep throat. Should the doctor be allowed to give her prescription medicine without parental consent? Hell yeah.”
Well, first off, there is a key difference between medicine to cure an existing problem which you get through no fault of your own (strep throat) and a drug which prevents consequences of actions you choose to take.
But what if the child is from a family of Christian Scientists? What if the child isn’t, but doesn’t want the medicine anyway? Should the doctor be allowed to decided “I have a child who doesn’t know what is best for it but clearly needs this medicine so I will make them take it anyway?” Is it the doctor’s (or principal’s) job to decide what is in the best interest of the child?
How about this: They currently require parental permission before a kid can make use of the clinic’s services, but once that permission is given the kid can use any services (including getting BC pills) without the parents knowing what the particular service was.
So, require parental permission before allowing a kid to get BC pills. Not for a particular instance, but in general. “Should your kid ever ask for BC pills, is it OK with you for them to get them?” Those parents who don’t want their kids on the pill ever get their wishes followed. Those who hope their kids don’t get sexually active but want them on the pill if they do, they get their wishes followed.
“Well, first off, there is a key difference between medicine to cure an existing problem which you get through no fault of your own (strep throat) and a drug which prevents consequences of actions you choose to take.”
And there we have it. The objection to birth control is to make sure there are consequences to sex. Like pregnancy and STD’s. Personally, I would rather teenagers not have sex (oddly enough, I arrived at this point on my 20th birthday), but can’t we make sure kids have access to birth control so no matter who their parents are their lives aren’t ruined? Not to mention ruining the life of that baby that has a 14-15 year old mother?
Also, wouldn’t access to birth control prevent abortions? You’ve got to think that a great number of pregnancies in that age group are terminated.
“Take the pregnancy prevention out of it.”
Um, that would still leave the right of privacy between a patient and a doctor. At the same time it’s like saying: Don’t you see how cool it would be if 12 year olds could carry guns? Take the shooting each other dead thing out of it.
I don’t think Oliver understands that if a twelve-year-old needs birth control, I’d bet my bottom dollar that her parents aren’t Ward and June Cleaver.
Add to the fact that 12-year-olds that are sexually active are usually getting with older guys and who knows what BS their spouting. “No, we don’t need condoms baby. You’re too young to get pregnant.”
C.S.Strowbridge: “Okay, imagine the daughter in question needs medication for strep throat. Should the doctor be allowed to give her prescription medicine without parental consent? Hell yeah.”
Sean D. Martin: “Well, first off, there is a key difference between medicine to cure an existing problem which you get through no fault of your own (strep throat) and a drug which prevents consequences of actions you choose to take.”
I don’t see that difference. I think that’s a moral argument and you can’t legislate based on your morals.
Sean D. Martin: “But what if the child is from a family of Christian Scientists?”
If the kid wants the medicine, the kids should get it. If the kid doesn’t want to tell their parents, that’s their decision.
“What if the child isn’t, but doesn’t want the medicine anyway? Should the doctor be allowed to decided ‘I have a child who doesn’t know what is best for it but clearly needs this medicine so I will make them take it anyway?’”
… What the fuck?
Seriously, where did this come from?
We are not talking about doctors forcing birth control pill down the throats of 12-year old girls. We are talking about doctors being allowed to treat their patients without being forced to tell another person.
Sean D. Martin: “Is it the doctor’s (or principal’s) job to decide what is in the best interest of the child?”
No, but since that’s not happening here, it doesn’t matter.
Sean D. Martin: “How about this: They currently require parental permission before a kid can make use of the clinic’s services, but once that permission is given the kid can use any services (including getting BC pills) without the parents knowing what the particular service was.”
No. Doctor patient privacy overrides anyone’s sense of morals. I trust the child’s judgment over a blanket law.
For the vast majority of people, a law requiring parental notification will not benefit anyone while it will interfere with the freedoms of most, and harm some.
It is a restriction without reason.
Like kryptonite to jumped-at conclusions . . .
You blew it, Oliver. If this is the same clinic that was in the news this past week, the clinic requires parental consent to establish the relationship, the doctor-patient privilege. Once that’s done, the kids can get the help they need. So there is no usurping parent’s rights here, just extending the kids a chance to become more responsible.
But even if it were the case that MDs were actively engaging these kids needs and questions without explicit consent: what if the family is the problem, the reason why they have needs and questions? At what point does the health of the child outweigh the needs of the parent to interfere with their health care?
I seriously think pundits like yourself should shut your pieholes about kids until you have one: having been one isn’t enough preparation for the decisions that need to be made.
C.S.Strowbridge: “I trust the child’s judgment”
If the kid had such good judgment, they wouldn’t be needing the BC pills. So, by all means, let’s let the child run the world.
C.S.Strowbridge: “I trust the child’s judgment”
Sean D. Martin: “If the kid had such good judgment, they wouldn’t be needing the BC pills.”
In your mind, according to your morals. But you can’t use your morals to write the laws.
I, on the other hand, think a 16-year old girl wanting to have birth control pills just in case is showing good judgment.
If you think 16-year olds having sex is not common or not normal, you need to fucking grow up and stop being so naive.
Sean D. Martin: “So, by all means, let’s let the child run the world.”
This is just stupid.
Come back when you have a real argument and not some bullshit strawman attack.
C.S.Strowbridge: “If you think 16-year olds having sex is not common or not normal, you need to fucking grow up and stop being so naive.”
When did I mention 16-year-olds? When did I say I don’t think kids are having sex? If you want to take disagree with what I say, then at least disagree with what I actually say. Don’t toss up your own strawman.
- I don’t think 12-year-olds have the best judgment for making life-changing decisions.
- I think you need to consider the child’s view, but you don’t provide a good example to children by completely deferring to their judgment over your own.
- I don’t think providing prescription drugs to minors without parental knowledge is good public policy.
- I don’t think public schools should be in the business of promoting law-breaking (by aiding and abetting sex for children (aka statutory rape)).
- I don’t think “they’re gonna do it anyway” is an acceptable excuse for throwing up your hands and completely giving in to behavior that is inappropriate.
- I think pragmatism is needed more often but should not be used to ignore dealing with the actual, underlying problem.
- I don’t think you solve problem A (inept parents) by providing a solution to (or actually exacerbating) symptom B (sexually irresponsible kids).
- I don’t think you should legislate morality for adults. (But realize most legislation is in fact based on a moral or ethical belief of what is “right”. People do use their morals to write the laws.)
If you want to discuss what I think and believe, fine. But let’s keep away from the ad hominem attacks.
- I don’t think children should be treated as adults. We don’t let them drink, drive, vote, serve in the military, skip school, work long hours or do a very long list of things. We recognize they don’t have the judgment or maturity to do certain things or make certain decisions.