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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

And people who support the teaching of condoms also support the teaching of abstinence. However, we don’t want abstinence only sex ed.

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…”

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.

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.

Do you guys not see anything wrong with a child getting prescription medicine without parental consent? Take the pregnancy prevention out of it.

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.