It is a CLEAR violation of the 14th Amendment for the state, or any agency of the state to deny or allow to be denied any rights of its citizens.

If the decision you state is as you say it is, then the school CANNOT allow a parent to deny their child those services... moreover, they cannot deny them themselves. If the child declines the service, that is one thing. But a parent cannot deny a service to a child that they have a right to, and the state cannot help the parent deny the child that right...

therefore... either the right to the morning after pill is NOT a right of the child... OR the state would be in violation of the 14th amendment if it follwed a parent's instructions to deny the service to their child

which is it?

(09-26-2012 10:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  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.

Last question UCF, because I'm really done with you

Correct me where I am wrong...

Your position is that a child has a constitutionally guaranteed right to these services. Constitutional rights are inviolate.

That the school doesn't have to offer these services, but can without parental consent

They OFFER to let parents opt their kids out to pacify parents, but really have no legal requirement to do so

That because the school doesn't HAVE to offer the service at all, they can selectively deny the service to someone who has asked for it, and has a right to it.

Do I understand you correctly? Seriously.... before you read on, answer this question.

Does that even SOUND like equal protection to you? Seems to me that by offering the opt-out, you are potentially allowing crazy parents to make their kids carry a baby they don't want, unless they can get to the clinic, which is something you seem to think many students can't do. Isn't this precisely the problem you wanted to avoid?

Quote:The right to privacy in connection with decisions affecting procreation extends to minors as well as to adults, and since a State may not impose a blanket prohibition, or even a blanket requirement of parental consent, on the choice of a minor to terminate her pregnancy, Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, the constitutionality of a blanket prohibition of the distribution of contraceptives to minors is a fortiori foreclosed.

This is straight from the ruling, there is no question in how it is interpreted - the constitutionality of a blanket prohibition of the distribution of contraceptives to minors is a fortiori foreclosed.

Read that one more time -
the constitutionality of a blanket prohibition of the distribution of contraceptives to minors is a fortiori foreclosed

Please, please, PLEASE stop arguing that this means something other than what it does. Before you make your next post, please take that statement into account, because frankly I'm tired of watching you make a fool of yourself over and over again.

As for your "SCHOOLS ARE THE STATE AND THEREFORE UR WRONG, IM IGNORING THE CLEAR AND CONCISE RULING!" argument, public schools have significantly different requirements in regards to their students civil liberties and constitutionally protected rights, from free speech to due process. See -

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Bethel School District v. Fraser

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Considering the difficulty you have understanding the meaning of "the constitutionality of a blanket prohibition of the distribution of contraceptives to minors is a fortiori foreclosed", ask your wife to explain those rulings because I really just don't have the time to hold your hand through basic constitutional issues

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

(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.

I agree...Parents can NOT opt out their children's rights in this matter. I think though everyone is missing the key point. It is not the school doing this. It is the Health Department. The school is providing access to the HC for a program that already exists under title 10. This is like the HC having a satellite office in the school. BTW...School nurses are contract employees that are paid by the HC...not the school. At least that is the way it is here in NC. I know this for a fact.

(09-27-2012 05:36 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

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

(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.

I agree...Parents can NOT opt out their children's rights in this matter. I think though everyone is missing the key point. It is not the school doing this. It is the Health Department. The school is providing access to the HC for a program that already exists under title 10. This is like the HC having a satellite office in the school. BTW...School nurses are contract employees that are paid by the HC...not the school. At least that is the way it is here in NC. I know this for a fact.

Again, schools are separate from HC in that they have far more leeway to infringe upon their students constitutional rights in order to allow it to function as a place of learning. I'm guessing the school board allowed to opt-out option to prevent a mass of complaints from parents (like we've seen here) and would argue that reasoning if it was ever taken to court, which it hasn't been from what I've seen. And it's irrelevant that it's HC employees doing so, if it's on school grounds they can likely have the same protection from being required strict constitutionality as the school.

Remember, just because something could be unconstitutional, doesn't mean it doesn't happen because until the court rules it so, there's no punishment for the state doing so.

(09-27-2012 11:01 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 05:36 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

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

(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.

I agree...Parents can NOT opt out their children's rights in this matter. I think though everyone is missing the key point. It is not the school doing this. It is the Health Department. The school is providing access to the HC for a program that already exists under title 10. This is like the HC having a satellite office in the school. BTW...School nurses are contract employees that are paid by the HC...not the school. At least that is the way it is here in NC. I know this for a fact.

Again, schools are separate from HC in that they have far more leeway to infringe upon their students constitutional rights in order to allow it to function as a place of learning. I'm guessing the school board allowed to opt-out option to prevent a mass of complaints from parents (like we've seen here) and would argue that reasoning if it was ever taken to court, which it hasn't been from what I've seen. And it's irrelevant that it's HC employees doing so, if it's on school grounds they can likely have the same protection from being required strict constitutionality as the school.

Remember, just because something could be unconstitutional, doesn't mean it doesn't happen because until the court rules it so, there's no punishment for the state doing so.

I see nothing that stopping a girl from obtaining plan B at the school...even if her parents opted out. School nurses must observe HIPAA just as any other HC provider. If a girl comes in...she must be seen and treated under title 10. What her parents say is irrelevant. The nurses have protocols to handle this and they could not even tell the parents without the child's consent.

You may be right..They put the opt out BS in to avoid people bitching. The fact remains that our sons and daughters can obtain birth control without our consent by law. There is nothing we can do about it...but complain.

I for one am glad that these programs exist. Would I rather parents teach responsibility and be open with their kids about sex and it's dangers?...YES. The fact is. Sex is going on. We all know it. To ignore the problem and not provide an avenue for a girl to escape a mistake is putting our heads in the sand and later having to deal with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.

Quote: You may be right..They put the opt out BS in to avoid people bitching. The fact remains that our sons and daughters can obtain birth control without our consent by law. There is nothing we can do about it...but complain.

This is my guess, and without it you might see protests or removal of children which would harm the schools purpose. Not sure though if it would hold up but from the rulings I could find, I think the school could make the argument.

And I'm with you 100% on liking these programs despite them not being the ideal situation.