(09-25-2012 02:04 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:29 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:... you are taking rights away from good parents... PARTICULARLY those with "at risk" kids who could likely benefit from their direction.

Hrmm...this is a really good poin-oh wait I forgot that a good parent who doesn't want this can opt their child out. Man, it's almost as if I've made that point a few times before, directly to you, and you keep ignoring that simple fact.

Let me make the point a little differently. BAD parents can have their rights taken away. Your point appears to be that it's ok for a school to subvert the rights of parents who are probably not as attentive as they should be, but nevertheless may love and worry about their kids.

ding ding ding

It's always the young ones with no kids that swear keeping up with everything in their kids lives is easy..

(09-25-2012 02:03 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I don't know what district you live in, but where I live, you get all your paperwork in order or you don't enroll.

They will enroll children with or without paperwork, education is a guaranteed right for minors, you're just a good parent who cares enough to not find that out.

Quote:Let me make the point a little differently. BAD parents can have their rights taken away. Your point appears to be that it's ok for a school to subvert the rights of parents who are probably not as attentive as they should be, but nevertheless may love and worry about their kids.

No, my point is that in every other aspect, the state assumes the most effective and scientifically valid option unless the parent insists otherwise (transfusions/vaccines/etc). This is absolutely no different.

So, you go right to 'the state should control it' argument. At least you are consistent. And wrong, wrong, wrong.

You posters are literally more concerned with the 'parental rights' of parents who don't care enough to make the effort than you are of ultimately forcing a child without caring parents to far greater health risks.

(09-25-2012 02:18 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  So, you go right to 'the state should control it' argument. At least you are consistent. And wrong, wrong, wrong.

Wow, I'm 3xwrong? Man if I'm that wrong, you'd think you'd actually have more to say than simply that I'm wrong. And no, my argument was not at all 'the state should control it', my argument is that 'the state should assume the safest medical decisions for all children', which I guess could be argued is a bad idea if you had children.

(09-25-2012 02:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You posters are literally more concerned with the 'parental rights' of parents who don't care enough to make the effort than you are of ultimately forcing a child without caring parents to far greater health risks.

Yes... Were concerned with peoples rights to raise their own kids. Were also convinced that school nurses with no medical degree and no detailed knowledge of the child's health history are not the best ones to go along with a 14yo and throw some pills at her.

Rights are not pretty, nor sanitary. As many have said there are avenues for emancipation on such issues.

The default is *none of the governments business*.

Quote: Rights are not pretty, nor sanitary. As many have said there are avenues for emancipation on such issues.

Name them.

(09-25-2012 02:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You posters are literally more concerned with the 'parental rights' of parents who don't care enough to make the effort than you are of ultimately forcing a child without caring parents to far greater health risks.

What I'd like is to kick some bad parents in the ass.

(09-25-2012 02:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You posters are literally more concerned with the 'parental rights' of parents who don't care enough to make the effort than you are of ultimately forcing a child without caring parents to far greater health risks.

Bad parents and teen pregnancy suck. This policy will certainly result in fewer unwanted pregnancies, which IS a great outcome...

But yes, for me, what you have said above is correct (I wouldn't use the word "caring" but that's nit picking). Because this policy almost certainly takes rights away from citizens in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. The opt-out mechanism makes the ASSUMPTION, without any basis in fact, that any parents who don't see, or pay close enough attention to the school's letter are sufficiently bad enough parents to forfeit their rights to make decisions on their kids' behalf.

(09-25-2012 01:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:I believe you said yourself that children may not want their parents knowing they are having sex.

No, I did not say that and in fact have refuted saying that a few separate times, *TO YOU*, in this thread. Learn to read my posts before you expect me to read or respect yours.

says the person who has willfully and knowingly distorted what I said.

Do you believe that a typical 14yr old kid... the "accepted" hypo for this debate... is going to go to their parents and say, Mom, Dad... I need for you to "opt in" for this in case I get pregnant because, you know, I'm 14 and all 14yr olds have sex? OR, do you think it more likely that they will deny any interest in having sex, and thus convince a loving, caring responsible parent that they needn't sign up for state delivered hormones?

Do you believe that someone (like me) could fully plan to administer plan B to their child (if necessary) and NOT abdicate that right to the state, and then be surprised when their emotional, confused 14yr old waits a few days to tell?

What if, the parent doesn't approve of the boy... regardless of their age or position... such that the child doesn't want to divulge their secret... NOT because of the pill, but because they are disobeying the parents, and PERHAPS the law? Is that a "compelling" government interest in taking an involved and attentive parents rights away?

Contrary to your rant, the article very clearly says that a letter will be sent about the policy. That's it. A letter. It also says that not only can they administer the drug, but they don't need to notify the parents

Until you can specifically answer those questions without fabricating what I am saying, your constant fantasies about these absentee parents and no recourse for these poor, responsible kids getting pregnant at 14 is a joke.

I support your general goal, but you ignore the perfectly legal and established method for resolving the very issues you mention in favor of some fantasy about absentee parents. You know, the ones who don't care enough to opt into medical treatment for their kids, but obviously care enough to sign the admission forms required for enrollment... or are their policies in place already to address a situation where a kid is legally required to go to school, or can get free lunch or school supplies, but no parent cares enough to sign them up?

(09-25-2012 02:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: Rights are not pretty, nor sanitary. As many have said there are avenues for emancipation on such issues.

Name them.

the same policies that register kids for schools without parental consent. Happens a lot in Texas with illegal aliens. The kids are required to go to school, but the parents are unwilling to sign paperwork on their behalf for fear of being caught. These kids often end up with free lunch, uniforms, school supplies, transportation etc etc etc. A district social worker is assigned to them and fills out reports determining and demonstrating that the child lacks adequate parental supervision to comply, and the school district assigns benefits and services as they deem appropriate. Also happens when schools and parents disagree in an ARD (special education assesment/meeting) though that can also involve lawyers and judges if it gets testy. Why an uncaring parent would care enough to fight it is beyond me, though. Then, of course, there is the simple act of going before a judge and having them issue a writ... The parent has to fight the writ or it becomes enforced... with a 72hour window, a judge would be allowed to administer the drug, and if the parent didn't fight it, institute the policy going forward. Once again, the parent who doesn't care would have to fight against it.

I mean, you realize that if your child falls at school, the school is required to notify your "guardian" of the fall and any medical attention received or necessary, right? Thus there MUST be a "guardian" on file. If not, the social worker files papers with the school board.

$42 million abortions since 1972. The dead are piling up. How many more before the War on the Unborn is over?

(09-25-2012 10:46 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  $42 million abortions since 1972. The dead are piling up. How many more before the War on the Unborn is over?

According to dems they we never alive and just a bunch of hair and skin. Nothing more. They make it seem like removing a mole from your neck.

(09-25-2012 01:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  it's not that R's are bad. They just don't look to do the big things like Clinton and Carter.

Like fail?

Yeah Clinton sure f*cked this country up good, huh?

I've never thought of it in quite that way, but Clinton did, indeed, leave the country in much worse shape than when he took office.

But anyway, I mainly was amused to see how Machiavelli's comment referenced "Clinton and Carter", yet UCF omitted the Nobel Peace Prize winner's name from his comment. Now, why do you suppose that is?

For a political junkie like me living within a 15-minute drive to the Carter Center in Atlanta, it has been fascinating to watch over the last quarter-century as liberals have struggled to define their own relationship with Carter and his legacy, and try to come to a consensus about how they should talk about it, both in "open" debate and in off-the-record talks amongst themselves. Conservatives have scarcely begun that process with George W. Bush, although they will eventually have to do so.

(09-25-2012 03:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 02:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: Rights are not pretty, nor sanitary. As many have said there are avenues for emancipation on such issues.

Name them.

the same policies that register kids for schools without parental consent. Happens a lot in Texas with illegal aliens. The kids are required to go to school, but the parents are unwilling to sign paperwork on their behalf for fear of being caught. These kids often end up with free lunch, uniforms, school supplies, transportation etc etc etc. A district social worker is assigned to them and fills out reports determining and demonstrating that the child lacks adequate parental supervision to comply, and the school district assigns benefits and services as they deem appropriate. Also happens when schools and parents disagree in an ARD (special education assesment/meeting) though that can also involve lawyers and judges if it gets testy. Why an uncaring parent would care enough to fight it is beyond me, though. Then, of course, there is the simple act of going before a judge and having them issue a writ... The parent has to fight the writ or it becomes enforced... with a 72hour window, a judge would be allowed to administer the drug, and if the parent didn't fight it, institute the policy going forward. Once again, the parent who doesn't care would have to fight against it.

I mean, you realize that if your child falls at school, the school is required to notify your "guardian" of the fall and any medical attention received or necessary, right? Thus there MUST be a "guardian" on file. If not, the social worker files papers with the school board.

And I don't know how many more times it must be repeated for you to understand, but this whole process does not work for Plan B. Plan B is only effective within a certain time period and that effectiveness is drastically reduced with each passing moment as opposed to over 95% effectiveness within 1 hour. To require something like this is the equivalent of not allowing Plan B in the first place, and forces the teens to either undergo abortion or pregnancy, both of which are exponentially more dangerous and harmful than Plan B.

This is a fiscally responsible, morally acceptable measure which allows those parents who do not wish their teen to have the ability to receive it as soon as possible so as to increase it's effectiveness (the state of NY already allows teens to get Plan B without adult notice so that point is moot). It's simply a way to have it available to the most teens as possible.

Quote: $42 million abortions since 1972. The dead are piling up. How many more before the War on the Unborn is over?

If you feel this way, you should be for the mass availability and ease of access for Plan B, as it does not effect fertilized eggs and can prevent abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

EDITED: I was rude, and shouldn't have been.

Quote:I support your general goal, but you ignore the perfectly legal and established method for resolving the very issues you mention in favor of some fantasy about absentee parents. You know, the ones who don't care enough to opt into medical treatment for their kids, but obviously care enough to sign the admission forms required for enrollment... or are their policies in place already to address a situation where a kid is legally required to go to school, or can get free lunch or school supplies, but no parent cares enough to sign them up?

Yuuuuuuup. You don't know much about public schools in bad areas if you don't know this happens. You've never seen kids with shoes 3 sizes too small because their parents don't give a **** to buy them new ones.

I'm not making hypotheticals, I'm basing this firmly in reality; I'd rather not force these same teens to jump through more hoops and risk being forced to choose between abortion/carrying the baby to term just so that bad parents won't risk not knowing their teenager took a very safe, effective, and non-abortive contraceptive. Teens have rights, as do parents, and since you can easily control this policies effect on your child, you don't get to claim that it's changing your parental rights.

(09-26-2012 02:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 03:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Then, of course, there is the simple act of going before a judge and having them issue a writ... The parent has to fight the writ or it becomes enforced... with a 72hour window, a judge would be allowed to administer the drug, and if the parent didn't fight it, institute the policy going forward. Once again, the parent who doesn't care would have to fight against it.

And I don't know how many more times it must be repeated for you to understand, but this whole process does not work for Plan B. Plan B is only effective within a certain time period and that effectiveness is drastically reduced with each passing moment as opposed to over 95% effectiveness within 1 hour. To require something like this is the equivalent of not allowing Plan B in the first place, and forces the teens to either undergo abortion or pregnancy, both of which are exponentially more dangerous and harmful than Plan B.

and I don't know how I could have addressed it more clearly. The kid comes in. No papers on file. She claims the parents don't care. You call the home, you drive by the work. If you don't find them, then a judge signs the order, but the parents are still notified. We're talking hours, not days. THIS assumes, of course, that the kid waits until they are pregnant to notify the school that they have crappy parents. As I've shown you... usually, the school already knows.

Quote:This is a fiscally responsible, morally acceptable measure which allows those parents who do not wish their teen to have the ability to receive it as soon as possible so as to increase it's effectiveness (the state of NY already allows teens to get Plan B without adult notice so that point is moot). It's simply a way to have it available to the most teens as possible.

How it is less morally or fiscally responsible by having an opt in rather than an opt out?

This is so typical of every argument I have with supposed liberals. People have rights WHICH YOU CANNOT TAKE AWAY FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER WITHOUT DUE PROCESS!! Sending a letter home is NOT due process. What about this is not clear?

(09-26-2012 02:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:says the person who has willfully and knowingly distorted what I said.

Where?

Your teacher rape interpretation

Quote:

Quote:Do you believe that a typical 14yr old kid... the "accepted" hypo for this debate... is going to go to their parents and say, Mom, Dad... I need for you to "opt in" for this in case I get pregnant because, you know, I'm 14 and all 14yr olds have sex? OR, do you think it more likely that they will deny any interest in having sex, and thus convince a loving, caring responsible parent that they needn't sign up for state delivered hormones?

What does that have to do with anything? Seriously, this response is so nonsensical to the discussion at hand that I don't even know how to respond or even if you're being serious. I'm not meaning that in a dismissive or rude way either, I'm just completely floored that you think this is at all revelent to anything? The program is 'opt-out', so your hypothetical is invalid, the parents would be the one sitting down to decide to opt-out, and again, this isn't aimed at kids whose parents take an active role in their lives.

Well, we're certainly talking about 14yr olds and parental notification, so I don't understand why you don't think a conversation about a 14yr old notifying their parents about something is irrelevent. I KNOW the program is opt out. If you still don't understand why I don't like it, see the all caps above. As to whom it is aimed at, THAT is what is irrelevent. The question is whom it impacts, and not merely whom it is aimed at. You're basically saying that a kid with uninvolved parents, without needing to prove that hypothesis, who would benefit from this either a) wouldn't tell anyone they had bad parents or b) the school wouldn't know, because of course, "nobody" has to register you for school. It's real simple. Make it one of the registration forms. If a parent signs it, you're golden. If they don't, did they sign everything else?? If they didn't, what would the school do about that?? REALLY simple.

Quote:Yuuuuuuup. You don't know much about public schools in bad areas if you don't know this happens. You've never seen kids with shoes 3 sizes too small because their parents don't give a **** to buy them new ones.

I'm not making hypotheticals, I'm basing this firmly in reality; I'd rather not force these same teens to jump through more hoops and risk being forced to choose between abortion/carrying the baby to term just so that bad parents won't risk not knowing their teenager took a very safe, effective, and non-abortive contraceptive. Teens have rights, as do parents, and since you can easily control this policies effect on your child, you don't get to claim that it's changing your parental rights.

Where is your evidence that these kids have bad parents? That they didn't get the letter and didn't call the school to complain about it? Wow. Overwhelming evidence.

You've already said you don't have kids, so you're one step behind as it is. I have two. One attended a public middle school where 48% of the school was on free lunch. 70% got assistance with uniform purchases. All things they had to "qualify" for, with their parents or other officials signing them up. I ran a program through the PTO that gave supplies, uniforms, equipment etc etc etc to them. We started a "rock" club/band to give troubled kids an outlet outside of athletics. As it was after school, guess what? No signature, no participation. Both of my children were "special needs". I have been INTIMATELY involved in the inner workings of public schools in a way that you cannot even imagine. I have more experience with permission slips and social workers and at risk kids than most parents, regardless of their level of "interest" in their kids lives.

Where does your inside knowledge come from?

Quote:and I don't know how I could have addressed it more clearly. The kid comes in. No papers on file. She claims the parents don't care. You call the home, you drive by the work. If you don't find them, then a judge signs the order, but the parents are still notified. We're talking hours, not days. THIS assumes, of course, that the kid waits until they are pregnant to notify the school that they have crappy parents. As I've shown you... usually, the school already knows.

And here I thought liberals were supposed to be the ones who loved bureaucracy?

So your alternative to 'Opt-Out' is to have paid school administrators on call at all times, in every district, to go on scavenger hunts to look for absentee parents, judges waiting by the phones, ready in a moments notice, to sign an order, which will then allow the teenagers to get the same contraceptive that they can get at any state health clinic without parental consent? That makes sense to you?

Quote:How it is less morally or fiscally responsible by having an opt in rather than an opt out?

It's less effective, and that's a fairly important aspect in regards to contraceptives. In fact, it's arguably the single most important aspect.

Quote:This is so typical of every argument I have with supposed liberals. People have rights WHICH YOU CANNOT TAKE AWAY FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER WITHOUT DUE PROCESS!! Sending a letter home is NOT due process. What about this is not clear?

And how many times have I made it clear that the teenagers themselves have rights, similar to yours and mine, and those include not being forced to notify their parents of contraceptive usage per Carey v. Population Services International. This is simply a more effective manner to allow all teenagers the rights that those whose parents take an active role in their life do.

Quote: You're basically saying that a kid with uninvolved parents who would benefit from this either a) wouldn't tell anyone they had bad parents or b) the school wouldn't know, because of course, "nobody" has to register you for school. It's real simple. Make it one of the registration forms. If a parent signs it, you're golden. If they don't, did they sign everything else?? If they didn't, what would the school do about that?? REALLY simple.

Then your daughter, if she lives in a town or area with easy access to a health clinic, will go and get it anyways. If she doesn't, she might end up pregnant or have an abortion. Making contraceptives as easy and accessible as possible should not be a divisive issue.

(09-25-2012 10:59 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-25-2012 01:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  it's not that R's are bad. They just don't look to do the big things like Clinton and Carter.

Like fail?

Yeah Clinton sure f*cked this country up good, huh?

I've never thought of it in quite that way, but Clinton did, indeed, leave the country in much worse shape than when he took office.

But anyway, I mainly was amused to see how Machiavelli's comment referenced "Clinton and Carter", yet UCF omitted the Nobel Peace Prize winner's name from his comment. Now, why do you suppose that is?

For a political junkie like me living within a 15-minute drive to the Carter Center in Atlanta, it has been fascinating to watch over the last quarter-century as liberals have struggled to define their own relationship with Carter and his legacy, and try to come to a consensus about how they should talk about it, both in "open" debate and in off-the-record talks amongst themselves. Conservatives have scarcely begun that process with George W. Bush, although they will eventually have to do so.

It's because I really haven't put much effort into learning about his presidency for one reason or another, and I don't like commenting on things I really don't have much of a right to. He's sort of a 'skipped over' president for those of us who didn't live through him (or weren't really cognizant at the time), much like H.W. is nowadays.

I do wonder though how Bush will end up being remembered by the Republicans, and true conservatives (as those aren't one and the same by any means), but I personally hope the eventual disdain is placed on the system which allowed those behind him to push the Iraq war through, and not as much on Bush himself.

(09-26-2012 04:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So your alternative to 'Opt-Out' is to have paid school administrators on call at all times, in every district, to go on scavenger hunts to look for absentee parents, judges waiting by the phones, ready in a moments notice, to sign an order, which will then allow the teenagers to get the same contraceptive that they can get at any state health clinic without parental consent? That makes sense to you?

As I suggested... when you register, you sign the form. Really simple.

But in an emergency... like the kid shows up day one and needs the pill and the parents didn't register them, yes... There already are administrators, social workers AND school police (including truant officers) on salary in every district whose job it is to get the proper paperwork on file for children. Do you REALLY see this as a major problem? Seriously?

Quote:How it is less morally or fiscally responsible by having an opt in rather than an opt out?

It's less effective, and that's a fairly important aspect in regards to contraceptives. In fact, it's arguably the single most important aspect.
[/quote]

Opting in or out, unless you are having to do it at the time of drug delivery has nothing to do with effectiveness... so to the point... so It's NOT morally or fiscally different.

Quote:

Quote:This is so typical of every argument I have with supposed liberals. People have rights WHICH YOU CANNOT TAKE AWAY FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER WITHOUT DUE PROCESS!! Sending a letter home is NOT due process. What about this is not clear?

And how many times have I made it clear that the teenagers themselves have rights, similar to yours and mine, and those include not being forced to notify their parents of contraceptive usage per Carey v. Population Services International. This is simply a more effective manner to allow all teenagers the rights that those whose parents take an active role in their life do.

Wow.

That case has nothing to do with oral medicine, NOR parental consent.

You can't just make up rights for kids. Show me where a child has the right to seek medical services without parental notification/consent? Buying a rubber is not a medical service. Contraception means stopping it before it happens, not after.

Quote:
Then your daughter, if she lives in a town or area with easy access to a health clinic, will go and get it anyways. If she doesn't, she might end up pregnant or have an abortion. Making contraceptives as easy and accessible as possible should not be a divisive issue.

It's not. Taking away parental rights without due process is.

All you have to do is make the form part of the same form you sign when you allow them to give your child aspirin or benadryl... or when you give them your insurance information in case they get hurt on school grounds so they can go to a hospital.

Seriously... WHY are you so afraid of opt in?

Here are the choices...
1) the parent registers the child. They either opt in, or they don't. Either way, it's an intentional act by the responsible parent

2) the parent DOESN"T register the child. The School district and their staff make decisions on behalf of the parents, who have now DEMONSTRATED a lack of parental interest. Due process.

People like you hate the slippery slope argument... but this isn't a slope at all. You are denying a parent a right that is clear. You are claiming a right of a minor that doesn't exist. Like it or not. Agree with it or not. The Morning after pill is a medical decision, and medical decisions are not made by minors.