New York school nurses to hand out Plan B morning after birth control pills as young as 14.



NYC schools to dispense morning-after pill without notifying parents

Published September 24, 2012 FoxNews.com

All women should be on the pill.

(09-24-2012 04:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  All women should be on the pill.

A 14 yo is not a "woman".

Also, this isn't "the pill".

Does the government know what's better for your children than you do?

I have zero problem with plan B. I have a HUGE problem with not notifying parents. Prior to 18, my daughter couldn't get her vision checked without my ok... or take aspirin at school, but she can take hormones?

I'd say we have a compelling state interest in doing all we can to prevent the pregnancy of 14 year olds, but I guess I'm just old fashioned.

(09-24-2012 05:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'd say we have a compelling state interest in doing all we can to prevent the pregnancy of 14 year olds, but I guess I'm just old fashioned.

How is that consistent with needing parental consent to give them aspirin? Or a physical? Or a vaccination? What about beer? Cigarettes? You can't question them in a crime without their parents consent, and if they say anything, you can't use it, but you can give them hormones?

(09-24-2012 05:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 05:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'd say we have a compelling state interest in doing all we can to prevent the pregnancy of 14 year olds, but I guess I'm just old fashioned.

How is that consistent with needing parental consent to give them aspirin? Or a physical? Or a vaccination? What about beer? Cigarettes? You can't question them in a crime without their parents consent, and if they say anything, you can't use it, but you can give them hormones?

Not saying it is, and I don't really like the idea honestly, but what if the parents say no? Do you really want to force a 14 year old to carry a baby she doesn't want because her parents either don't care (likely the most applicable situation here given the state of innercity families) or say she has to?

(09-24-2012 05:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 05:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 05:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'd say we have a compelling state interest in doing all we can to prevent the pregnancy of 14 year olds, but I guess I'm just old fashioned.

How is that consistent with needing parental consent to give them aspirin? Or a physical? Or a vaccination? What about beer? Cigarettes? You can't question them in a crime without their parents consent, and if they say anything, you can't use it, but you can give them hormones?

Not saying it is, and I don't really like the idea honestly, but what if the parents say no? Do you really want to force a 14 year old to carry a baby she doesn't want because her parents either don't care (likely the most applicable situation here given the state of innercity families) or say she has to?

Why do we assume that if the kid wants the pill (sort of a requirment in the first place, unless you're just going to administer it to everyone every morning) and the parent doesn't care, that the parent would say "NO, make my kid HAVE that baby against her will!!" "I don't care" would be acceptance, not rejection. If the parents say no, who are you/we to step in and decide WHY they said no?

Either decisions like these are none of anyone's business, or they are. EIther people can make decisions for themselves at 18 or 14 or 10 or 6 or they can't. How about the other end of the spectrum? Someone not legally able to make decisions for themselves can have those decisions made by the government against the families wishes. Are you up for that?

Either the government is IN your bedroom or it isn't. It can't be In when you think it should, and out when you think it shouldn't... because then "morals" become valid political arguments... and "the Bible says so" becomes the law of the land.

The morning after pill is about the cost of a cup of coffee. This isn't about funding.

The government isn't making the decision, they're providing the option.

To say that it is a baby that the 14yo does not want does not account for the fact that the unborn child happens to be a grandchild as well.

Why not just tell the whole world that government has a solution to all your irresponsible behavior and be done with it?

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

They shouldn't do either.

That is one of the worst posts I've read here today SMN. Because the government cannot help lessen the effects of all negative decisions one makes we should not allow it to help those it could?

Perish the thought the kids get a headache and need an aspirin. How in the world can Nurses hand out medication?

Oh I forget because it let's the little animals hump all the day long we treat birth control like pez that the government should pay for..

(09-24-2012 04:50 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  New York school nurses to hand out Plan B morning after birth control pills as young as 14.



NYC schools to dispense morning-after pill without notifying parents

Published September 24, 2012 FoxNews.com

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.

(09-24-2012 05:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'd say we have a compelling state interest in doing all we can to prevent the pregnancy of 14 year olds, but I guess I'm just old fashioned.

You'd be old fashioned if you though parents should be consented in what medications their children are given by agents of the state..

(09-24-2012 06:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  That is one of the worst posts I've read here today SMN. Because the government cannot help lessen the effects of all negative decisions one makes we should not allow it to help those it could?

Help? By undercutting (cutting out, actually) parents, they are helping?

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

To children vastly too young to understand the physical and emotional implications of the Behavior they are trying to enable..

It's like handing an alcoholic and open beer and saying "I'm just giving him the option"

Children are alcoholics now?

Again, would you rather a 14 year old carry a child she didn't want?