Only in NYC can a 14 year old get the morning after pill but not a big gulp. Liberal utopia.

This is just an indication of what leftists would do if they could get away with it. They love to undercut parents. If you don't believe me, look at Kalifornia, where libs rule. Check out all the assaults on parents' rights by the state educational system and the court cases due to them.

Authoritarian regimes want control of the children and their education. Ever wonder why? NY is a leftwing paradise and it is no surprise that this is happening there.

I agree with Brookes Owl. They should have done this as an opt-in but that defeats the purpose as they see it.

Because the success of the Liberal model for public education / indoctrination demands that parents be indifferent.

(09-24-2012 06:51 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Article says parents can opt out (i.e. can tell school not to offer Plan B to their daughter[s]). Why not an opt in? Isn't it highly likely that some parents won't see the letter the school sends, or toss it aside after barely scanning it? Why not say "We're offering a program to dispense prescription drugs to your kids, so we need your authorization to do so."

I think the opt out letter BARELY covers it, but I also think it's pretty much a lock that minors are going to get these drugs without their parents having any idea that they are even available, let alone being dispensed to their own kids.

I have no problem with Plan B but we ought to be outraged if children who have not reached the age of consent are being given access to prescription medication without parental consent.

Quote: I agree with Brookes Owl. They should have done this as an opt-in but that defeats the purpose as they see it.

No, it just negates the purpose entirely. If the parent opts in, the teenager wouldn't have to go to the school for this and therefore it would be a useless measure. The point of this (I'm assuming, at least) is to give teenagers who have no parental involvement the ability to not ruin much of their lives due to a stupid decision made while a teenager (not too mention give the taxpayers more costs). Those parents who fall under this category aren't going to opt into anything, including their own parental responsibilities, so requiring that they opt in not only negates the purpose, it excludes those who would benefit most from this.

And what of the parents who aren't aware and don't opt out? Well, you really think they're doing their jobs as parents well enough to have a such a say in their teenagers future, even overriding their wishes? I don't.

So if you opt out and the school hands it out anyway, how is the parent to know?

How are we to know that anything illegal happens on school grounds?

(09-24-2012 06:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Again, would you rather a 14 year old carry a child she didn't want?

False dichotomy. It's not: A) Notify the parents, OR B) 14 yr old gets Plan B. The problem is consent. Kids who are not old enough to do so and parents who are biologically, morally, and legally REQUIRED to do so on their kids' behalf.

ETA: The fact that some parents aren't doing their job is not enough of a justification. If the State decides parents aren't fit to participate in their kids' lives then there are legal options available. (Frankly, some of those options are pretty horrifying as well.)

(09-24-2012 07:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And what of the parents who aren't aware and don't opt out? Well, you really think they're doing their jobs as parents well enough to have a such a say in their teenagers future, even overriding their wishes? I don't.

So, you NEVER failed to take home a letter from your school to your parents? I hope for your sake that you never reproduce. Better yet, maybe you should have children and then run up against a powerful bureaucracy that believes it is their right to make parenting decision FOR YOU. Then you might understand.

They are still the parents of the students. If we had a parenting test, many might fail but they are still legally responsible for the care of their children.

What I gather from your response is that you have no problems with government inserting themselves in between parents and their kids.

(09-24-2012 07:18 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  ETA: The fact that some parents aren't doing their job is not enough of a justification. If the State decides parents aren't fit to participate in their kids' lives then there are legal options available. (Frankly, some of those options are pretty horrifying as well.)

Funny how social services and child protection services all seem to be run by lefties, almost everywhere.

Um, no? The options, for those teenagers who would fall into this situation, are more accurately 1) Allow them access to Plan B or 2) sit back while they become pregnant despite not wishing to, carry the child to term, and as their parents aren't involved anyways, grossly negatively affect their lives and burden the taxpayers with the expense.

Unless, of course, you think parents taking an active role in their teenagers lives wouldn't opt out of this?

UFC80 - Is Obama your dad? You sound just like him when he said if one of his daughters made a mistake he wouldn't want them to be "burdened" with a baby.

(09-24-2012 07:20 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 07:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And what of the parents who aren't aware and don't opt out? Well, you really think they're doing their jobs as parents well enough to have a such a say in their teenagers future, even overriding their wishes? I don't.

So, you NEVER failed to take home a letter from your school to your parents? I hope for your sake that you never reproduce. Better yet, maybe you should have children and then run up against a powerful bureaucracy that believes it is their right to make parenting decision FOR YOU. Then you might understand.

They are still the parents of the students. If we had a parenting test, many might fail but they are still legally responsible for the care of their children.

What I gather from your response is that you have no problems with government inserting themselves in between parents and their kids.

You think this is a permission slip for a museum tour or something, that's just sent home with a teenager with the expectation that they'll show it to their parents? I live in Florida, am not a parent, and *I* heard about this. If you're a NY parent taking any semblance of an active role in your teenagers life, you would know about this and would make your own decisions. Having an 'opt-in' would absolutely defeat the purpose of allowing the teenager to have options that they normally wouldn't because their parents are sh*tty human beings who shouldn't be parents.

And I've never once advocated anything but larger budgets and more available support for kids and teenagers in these sort of situations, but as it is now, allowing a sh*tty parent custody is often head and shoulders above the alternatives, so that 'legal responsibility' isn't really a card we can realistically play that often (for the child/teenagers sake).

(09-24-2012 07:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  UFC80 - Is Obama your dad? You sound just like him when he said if one of his daughters made a mistake he wouldn't want them to be "burdened" with a baby.

No, I'm just a rational person who knows I did tons of stupid sh*t as a teenager, and that was with two loving, supportive, and downright awesome parents. I can't imagine how it would be in a situation like many of our nations children live in, and I don't feel that we should hold their futures over their heads when a simple, safe, and effective solution such as Plan B presents itself.

And apparently I'm more of a fiscal conservative than most on this board, too.

The goal is limiting unwanted pregnancies. I would think that a girl may "chance it" if her parents might find out she's been doing the horizontal limbo. Anything that could prevent an unwanted pregnancy. That should be our number 1 goal. Quit worrying about everyone else's kids social cons. Worry about your own.

No I don't think that this is like a permission slip for a field trip. Unlike you, I'm not a child and don't think like one.

This seems to be an over-reach on the part of government. Parents have rights but you believe that the state should be able to override them and have the final say. This despite the fact that legally, the kids can not make those decisions for themselves until they reach the age of majority.

Won't be surprised when this ends up in court.

Mach - screw you. This type of thinking that we should institute a questionable policy because of a subset of kids and their problem is the kind of thinking that is undermining society. I'm not surprised, though. As is usual for leftwing ideas and solutions, all that matters is that you meant well. Saw a problem, which was legitimate and then put in place a solution without thinking it through. When a parent sues the schools and wins a big award, you might want to rethink the approach.

(09-24-2012 05:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The government isn't making the decision, they're providing the option.

But someone under 21 can't take the option to have a beer, someone under 18 can't make the decision to buy cigarettes, someone under 17 can't make the decision to go to an R rated movie and someone under 16 can't decide to drive a car.

It seems no one has a problem with any of these, but a 14 year old should be deciding whether or not to have an abortion by herself?

(09-24-2012 07:36 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The goal is limiting unwanted pregnancies. I would think that a girl may "chance it" if her parents might find out she's been doing the horizontal limbo. Anything that could prevent an unwanted pregnancy. That should be our number 1 goal. Quit worrying about everyone else's kids social cons. Worry about your own.

As soon as the FedGov gets out of individuals' lives with unconstitutional social programs then we can take the personal politics out of the debate.

National Defense
Foreign Representation
Interstate Transportation
Resolving Disputes Between States

(09-24-2012 07:38 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  No I don't think that this is like a permission slip for a field trip. Unlike you, I'm not a child and don't think like one.

This seems to be an over-reach on the part of government. Parents have rights but you believe that the state should be able to override them and have the final say. This despite the fact that legally, the kids can not make those decisions for themselves until they reach the age of majority.

Won't be surprised when this ends up in court.

You seem quite worried about the rights of parents who don't care about their parental responsibilities enough to simply opt-out of this program.

Situational ethics, Blah. They're really good at it.

(09-24-2012 07:42 PM)blah Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 05:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The government isn't making the decision, they're providing the option.

But someone under 21 can't take the option to have a beer, someone under 18 can't make the decision to buy cigarettes, someone under 17 can't make the decision to go to an R rated movie and someone under 16 can't decide to drive a car.

It seems no one has a problem with any of these, but a 14 year old should be deciding whether or not to have an abortion by herself?

Because the teenagers/families this is aimed at include loving parents who take active roles in their lives and their responsibilities seriously. Plan B is effective, cheap, and safe, but it is only effective when taken *SOON* after intercourse. You don't want your kid given it? Take responsibility and opt out, but you're not who this program is aimed at.