And on another note, Aspirin itself is fairly dangerous as far as OTC medicine goes and would likely be prescription if introduced today.

(09-26-2012 09:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 09:30 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 09:16 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't think you didn't understood my post, because that's exactly what they are arguing; it should be available over the counter to minors under the age of 17.

How old do you have to be to buy aspirin?

That isn't relevant to the discussion on Plan B, at all. Stay on topic.

Sure it is. You are the one advocating that minors should be able to self medicate with any OTC medication at their own accord.

(09-26-2012 09:47 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 09:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 09:30 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 09:16 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't think you didn't understood my post, because that's exactly what they are arguing; it should be available over the counter to minors under the age of 17.

How old do you have to be to buy aspirin?

That isn't relevant to the discussion on Plan B, at all. Stay on topic.

Sure it is. You are the one advocating that minors should be able to self medicate with any OTC medication at their own accord.

They legally can, and if you have a problem with specific OTC medications then start another thread for those, but this isn't relevant because of the reasons surrounding Plan B; it isn't to lessen a headache or stop a runny nose, it's there to prevent pregnancy. The possible repercussions must be taken into account.

ok, let me make this clear to you UCF

If the 14yr old had a right to the morning after pill as you claim, a parent, good or not, could not take that right away from them by opting out. You can't opt your child out of their rights.

Forget all the BS you think you know. That is a fact, and is clear. Stop talking about the child's rights here because they don't exist

The fact that they can go SOMEWHERE ELSE and get the same treatment in 14 states is IMMATERIAL to the conversation. They can't currently get it at school. The SCHOOL has decided that they want to offer it, and in your opinion, they have the necessary medical personnel to meet the legal requirements, yet the school apparently doesn't yet agree, otherwise they would simply call the school nurse an extension of the clinic and administer it without parental consent. That isn't happening.

Stop telling me why this is a good idea. Stop telling me why it is important. My PROBLEM with your argument is not the ends. I genrally agree that this is a good idea. My problem is the means to which you are willing to go to accomplish it, and the rights you are willing to ignore to get there.

So it is clear that the parents have the rights, and not the child, and the school is making the parents affirmatively defend their rights or lose them. That is NOT the way to do it, and a perfectly reasonable alternative exists. Five of them, in fact... They can get permission, they can send them to the clinic, they can petition for relief (like the other 36 states) or they can meet the same legal requirements as the clinic, or they can have the law amended to extend the clinic's power to the school nurse. From a civil liberties standpoint, ALL of those are preferable to requiring an affirmative defense to a parents rights.

THOSE possible repercussions need to be taken into account as well.

Quote:If the 14yr old had a right to the morning after pill as you claim, a parent, good or not, could not take that right away from them by opting out. You can't opt your child out of their rights.

This 'opt-out/opt-in' only applies to the program which places the healthcare employees at public schools, it does not affect their rights within the healthcare centers themselves. The reason? Ignorant parents like yourself who aren't aware of their teens constitutionally protected rights to due process.

Quote:Forget all the BS you think you know. That is a fact, and is clear. Stop talking about the child's rights here because they don't exist

SCOTUS says otherwise. Read my posts please before you keep making a fool out of yourself. Please?

Quote:The fact that they can go SOMEWHERE ELSE and get the same treatment in 14 states is IMMATERIAL to the conversation. They can't currently get it at school. The SCHOOL has decided that they want to offer it, and in your opinion, they have the necessary medical personnel to meet the legal requirements, yet the school apparently doesn't yet agree, otherwise they would simply call the school nurse an extension of the clinic and administer it without parental consent. That isn't happening.

It isn't happening because the school is worried about people like you. Like I stated before, there is no guarantee for contraceptives or their availability in the SCOTUS ruling (waaaay beyond their power), but the state cannot pass legislation requiring parental consent or not allow minors the rights to purchase said contraceptives where available. It's that simple.

(09-26-2012 09:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 09:47 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 09:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 09:30 PM)homefry20 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 09:16 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't think you didn't understood my post, because that's exactly what they are arguing; it should be available over the counter to minors under the age of 17.

How old do you have to be to buy aspirin?

That isn't relevant to the discussion on Plan B, at all. Stay on topic.

Sure it is. You are the one advocating that minors should be able to self medicate with any OTC medication at their own accord.

They legally can, and if you have a problem with specific OTC medications then start another thread for those, but this isn't relevant because of the reasons surrounding Plan B; it isn't to lessen a headache or stop a runny nose, it's there to prevent pregnancy. The possible repercussions must be taken into account.

You know what else prevents pregnancy? Abstinence. Making an abortion pill available without any strings attached is promoting unprotected sex, wich not only leads to pregnancy but also STDs.

Quote: You know what else prevents pregnancy? Abstinence. Making an abortion pill available without any strings attached is promoting unprotected sex, wich not only leads to pregnancy but also STDs.

It's funny you say that because SCOTUS -

Quote:Moreover, there is substantial doubt whether limiting access to contraceptives will, in fact, substantially discourage early sexual behavior. When a State, as here, burdens the exercise of a fundamental right, its attempt to justify that burden as a rational means for the accomplishment of some state policy requires more than the unsupported assertion (appellants here having conceded that there is no evidence that teenage extramarital sexual activity increases in proportion to the availability of contraceptives) that the burden is connected to such a policy.

and the American Academy of Pediatricians

Quote:In 2 studies of US females from 15 to 24 years old, a treatment
group received advance provision of emergency contraception and a control group received education only. There were no differences in the frequency of unprotected sex between the groups in both studies...A lesson on emergency contraception incorporated into the school curriculum for British 12- to 15-year-olds found no difference in reported sexual activity for the 6-month interval after the educational intervention compared with students not receiving the educational intervention.

disagree with that assertion.

Seriously, am I the only one who actually looks up this sh*t before making claims that have long been proven false?

Hambone, I've posted the ruling, and the direct wording from the ruling twice now. Go back, read it, and if you have any questions regarding it, quote what you are responding to because it's clear you haven't even attempted to read it yet and I'm trying to give you the ability to save face here.

UCF.

You're wrong and you own me an apology.

A parent cannot deny a child their Constitutional rights by opting out. You cannot opt ANYONE else out of their rights. The school cannot offer to help deny my child their rights by giving me the opportunity to opt out. They cannot claim that they were honoring my parental rights if they knew the actual rights lay with the child.

(09-26-2012 10:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Hambone, I've posted the ruling, and the direct wording from the ruling twice now. Go back, read it, and if you have any questions regarding it, quote what you are responding to because it's clear you haven't even attempted to read it yet and I'm trying to give you the ability to save face here.

The ruling has nothing to do with schools. It also does not create the absolute right you seem to claim. If it did, the school would be violating the law by giving me the opportunity to deny my child that right... or better, would be violating the law by following my instructions to opt out, thus making the ability to opt out, moot. I can't point to it because it isn't there.

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between requiring all healthcare services to all minors and not allowing the passing of legislation with specifically requires parental notification or not allowing healthcare services to minors. Abortion is legal, yet that does not force all Ob/Gyns, even those in public hospitals, to provide them.

(09-26-2012 10:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between requiring all healthcare services to all minors and not allowing the passing of legislation with specifically requires parental notification or not allowing healthcare services to minors. Abortion is legal, yet that does not force all Ob/Gyns, even those in public hospitals, to provide them.

What does being forced to provide something have to do with having the right of access to it? The state can't force my child to take the pill. So you know, I'm in hospital administration (work for a management company) who provides services to a religious based healthcare system in a state that offers free morning after pills without notification, though my kids didn't go to school here.. I'm pretty familiar with this

Stay on topic.

If the school offers the service to one person, they must offer it to others. They can't discriminate based on parental rights that you claim don't exist

If the child's parents were catholic, can the school deny their child access to condoms?

I'm trying to sum up your argument.

The kids have a right to this through the school system guaranteed to them by the SCOTUS, yet because of ignorant parents, who have zero legal ground to stand on, they offer the ability to opt their children out of their rights in order to avoid a confrontation, ignoring, of course that doing so opens them up to a civil rights violation claim by the kids, which the school would obviously lose because the scotus has ruled on this

Do I have you right?

(09-26-2012 10:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 10:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between requiring all healthcare services to all minors and not allowing the passing of legislation with specifically requires parental notification or not allowing healthcare services to minors. Abortion is legal, yet that does not force all Ob/Gyns, even those in public hospitals, to provide them.

What does being forced to provide something have to do with having the right of access to it? The state can't force my child to take the pill.

Abortion is constitutionally protected currently, yes? That does not mean that the state is required to provide abortions to their population, only that the state cannot pass legislation which makes it illegal to do so. It's really a simple concept.

Quote:If the school offers the service to one person, they must offer it to others. They can't discriminate based on parental rights that you claim don't exist

If the child's parents were catholic, can the school deny their child access to condoms?

If the school's policy said it could, yes they could. The school doesn't have to provide those healthcare options at all, that's not what a constitutional ruling means. Just because they cannot pass legislation to make X illegal doesn't mean that X must be available at all places, at all times.

(09-26-2012 10:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm trying to sum up your argument.

The kids have a right to this through the school system guaranteed to them by the SCOTUS, yet because of ignorant parents, who have zero legal ground to stand on, they offer the ability to opt their children out of their rights in order to avoid a confrontation, ignoring, of course that doing so opens them up to a civil rights violation claim by the kids, which the school would obviously lose because the scotus has ruled on this

Do I have you right?

I'm really questioning whether or not you're just a troll at this point. Not a flame, seriously, I'm starting to think you either have no intention at even reading my posts or you're just wasting my time.

(09-26-2012 10:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Abortion is constitutionally protected currently, yes?

No. Abortion is constitutionally protected in certain circumstances.

Quote:That does not mean that the state is required to provide abortions to their population, only that the state cannot pass legislation which makes it illegal to do so. It's really a simple concept.

The state is not required to provide them at all. They merely can't deny them

Quote:

Quote:If the school offers the service to one person, they must offer it to others. They can't discriminate based on parental rights that you claim don't exist

If the child's parents were catholic, can the school deny their child access to condoms?

If the school's policy said it could, yes they could. The school doesn't have to provide those healthcare options at all, that's not what a constitutional ruling means. Just because they cannot pass legislation to make X illegal doesn't mean that X must be available at all places, at all times.

Wait. You realize that the school is a public entity and subject to the same rules as the state, right? They don't have to offer the services, but they also can't deny them access. If they provide access to one student, they must provide it to another. We're not talking about all places at all times. We're talking about 2 kids walking into the same room at the same time making the same request. You can say no to both, or yes to both, but if it is a right, you cannot deny one person and accept the other

Quote:Wait. You realize that the school is a public entity and subject to the same rules as the state, right? They don't have to offer the services, but they also can't deny them access. If they provide access to one student, they must provide it to another. We're not talking about all places at all times. We're talking about 2 kids walking into the same room at the same time making the same request. You can say no to both, or yes to both, but if it is a right, you cannot deny one person and accept the other

Yes you can, as long as you do not pass any legislation making the providing of contraception to minors a crime.

This is literally just a concession by the school board to parents such as yourself, and you're trying to (ineptly) show that it proves that a SCOTUS ruling invalid despite the ruling stating exactly what I claimed it did. READ THE RULING. STOP TRYING TO OUT LAWYER ME BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING IT WORSE.

(09-26-2012 10:47 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 10:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm trying to sum up your argument.

The kids have a right to this through the school system guaranteed to them by the SCOTUS, yet because of ignorant parents, who have zero legal ground to stand on, they offer the ability to opt their children out of their rights in order to avoid a confrontation, ignoring, of course that doing so opens them up to a civil rights violation claim by the kids, which the school would obviously lose because the scotus has ruled on this

Do I have you right?

I'm really questioning whether or not you're just a troll at this point. Not a flame, seriously, I'm starting to think you either have no intention at even reading my posts or you're just wasting my time.

If that is how you view reasoned, well articulated opinions, then fine. What do you think I've missed in your posts?

That case does not do what you say it does. I don't care what you THINK it says, because the evidence is in the application.

The school can't offer a parent to deny their student constitutionally protected services that they offer to other students. They don't have to offer them at all, but they can't discriminate if they do.

It's not what I think it says, it's what it says. It's written in plain english, so read it. Until you actually refer to the ruling itself I'm done saying the same thing over and over.

(09-26-2012 10:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:Wait. You realize that the school is a public entity and subject to the same rules as the state, right? They don't have to offer the services, but they also can't deny them access. If they provide access to one student, they must provide it to another. We're not talking about all places at all times. We're talking about 2 kids walking into the same room at the same time making the same request. You can say no to both, or yes to both, but if it is a right, you cannot deny one person and accept the other

Yes you can, as long as you do not pass any legislation making the providing of contraception to minors a crime.

This is literally just a concession by the school board to parents such as yourself, and you're trying to (ineptly) show that it proves that a SCOTUS ruling invalid despite the ruling stating exactly what I claimed it did. READ THE RULING. STOP TRYING TO OUT LAWYER ME BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING IT WORSE.

Wow. Truly mind boggling. Stop telling me to read it. I have. More importantly, I understand it.

How is it a concession to parents like me if I support plan B? Perhaps YOU should read MY posts.

I keep trying to come up with an example, but I can't think of ONE situation where the state offers a constitutionally guaranteed service, that you are guaranteed access to regardless of what your parents say (the definition of a right), but only if your parents say it is okay

One of my degrees is political science... 25 years married to a lawyer... 3 years managing a law office... I've read the argument. It doesn't apply.

Give me ONE other example where a state offers services to one person who wants it and has a right to it, but denies another those services who wants it and has a right to it because someone else wants them to??