How Young Is Too Young For Birth Control?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,245
Location
Edge's beanie closet
abcnews.com

How Young Is Too Young for Birth Control?
One School District Mulls a Proposal to Offer Contraceptives to Girls as Young as 11

Oct. 17, 2007

Parents and school officials are preparing to battle tonight in a debate about the sexual health of children at one Maine school district.

Administrators at a Portland middle school are considering a bold proposal that would allow students to access a broader range of contraceptives from the school's health center.

King Middle School's health center already provides condoms as part of its reproductive health program, implemented after five of the 135 students who visited the center last year reported being sexually active.

Prescriptions for birth control pills and patches would be included in the new measure, which has become a lightning rod for controversy in the area.

"We do certainly sit down and speak with them about why that's not a good choice," said Portland's school nurse coordinator Amanda Rowe of sexually active students. "But there are some who persist, even though we don't like to think about that in being sexually active, and they need to be protected."

The school's female students are in grades six to eight and range from ages 11 to 13.

"It will provide a means of making sure you don't get pregnant and ruin your school career and limit yourself in the future," Rowe said.

The students will need a parent's written permission to access any services provided, but they would not have to disclose which service they receive, a point of contention for some.

"They are sending mixed messages. In the state of Maine it is illegal to have sex under the age of 14," said cable talk show host and ABC News commentator Glen Beck on "Good Morning America" today. "You are enabling people."

Beck argued that the plan makes it too easy for girls to have sex and takes power away from the parent, a sentiment some parents agree with.

"I don't think I would want my child in middle school to be getting birth control pills unless I had something to do with it," one woman said.

But others said they believe the proposal is a good idea because some parents feel uncomfortable in the role of sexual educator.

"Parents should be the sex educator for their children," said sexologist and relationship expert Logan Levkoff on "Good Morning America" today. "The problem is not every parent feels empowered [to do so]."

One mother said she believed the idea may be on the right track.

"I think that education at that age is appropriate because our culture is saturated with messages about sex," the woman said.
 
:sigh:

it's all about health. it's so disappointing when people use teenagers to flex their moralizing muscles, and then the teens have to suffer as a result. this is a health issue. preventing early pregnancy is paramount. yes, of course no one wants teens to have sex, but i don't see how the mere availability of birth control is somehow an endorsement of the activity, especially when it should be combined with comprehensive sex education as well as counseling in such a situation.

but i'm sure Glen Beck will milk this for days of outrage. GARRRR!

the surest way for a kid who's going to have sex to NOT use birth control is to require her to tell her mother before she does so. a 17 year old might be able to have a mature discussion with her parents about this, but i doubt a 13 year old would. and, frankly, there are some parents who should have this power taken away from them, because it doesn't really exist at all. i'm 30 and i'd never discuss sex with my parents.

i guess my question is why pills, why not keep it at condoms? i would argue that STDs are at least as important as pregnancy, and pills don't guard against that, and it helps to share the responsibility between the boy and the girl.
 
Wait...so who writes the prescriptions? If this means the girls see a doctor, the doctor writes a script, and the school fills it for free, then fine. I'd be concerned with a school giving out ANY prescription medication for ANY reason, without the script from the doc. I had friends that started birth control pills when they were 11 (not FOR birth control though) so it's not like a new thing. I wish I had! I had my worst periods at that age and was in agony 8 days every month.

I don't get the parental rights argument though. Girls can walk into clinics and get the stuff for free without their parents knowing.....
 
Irvine511 said:
i'd argue the question is whether or not the availability of contraception enables sex at a young age.

I'd argue too, since they've been available for girls of that age for quite some time, and I thought that compared to previous decades, kids ARE actually being a bit smarter about sex...
 
Liesje said:


I'd argue too, since they've been available for girls of that age for quite some time, and I thought that compared to previous decades, kids ARE actually being a bit smarter about sex...



someone tell Glen Beck that.

despite the increase of sex in advertising -- i wonder when all these free market moralists are going to realize that the sex comes from the insane desire to sell, sell, sell a ll the time -- teen pregnancy rates are currently lower than they've been in decades, and more kids graduate virgins than in 1991.

(if memory serves)
 
Mrs. Springsteen said:
I'm trying to figure out what parents not feeling "empowered" to be the sex educators means, exactly. Can't you just empower yourself to do that?

There are still some parents out there who are afraid to talk about sex with their kids. For some reason, they believe talking about sex would make their kids go out and do it. How so, beats the hell out of me.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I'm trying to figure out what parents not feeling "empowered" to be the sex educators means, exactly. Can't you just empower yourself to do that?


exactly. ultimately, it is the parents responsibility to talk to their kids about birth control. as uncomfortable as i was talking to my daughter about the subject, i was glad to do it. believe me, daisy hated every moment of that conversation but she understood why i had to talk to her about these things. i cant understand why other parents feel they have to wait or they are so uncomfortable they wont even talk about it.
 
Pearl said:


There are still some parents out there who are afraid to talk about sex with their kids. For some reason, they believe talking about sex would make their kids go out and do it. How so, beats the hell out of me.

I know that, but that's not the same thing as feeling empowered or not about it. Nor is it the same as feeling uncomfortable. Like icelle said, it is their responsibility.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Enables sex? How so?

I think the perspective of those against providing contraceptives (be they condoms or birth control pills, etc.) is that the lack of them is the only thing that will keep some teens from having sex. I can sort of see the logic in that, but judging from personal experiences with friends of mine, even without parental approval of contraception (and often times with a lack of it, period) they still went ahead and had sex anyway. This lead to one of my best friends getting pregnant 2 years ago. All I know is that people my age (19) and anywhere in this span of teen years that want to have sex are going to have it. It's best if they're provided ways to protect themselves. While teenage sexual activity is not exactly a badge of honor; I feel those against providing this contraception to teens are almost in the wrong, more. It's classic manipulation: "In order to get you to do (or not do, in this case) as I want, I'll withhold something that could help you."
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
There are many that believe so, I just haven't seen anyone show me how...

I think the idea is that kids will be more likely to have sex, thinking that with less chance of pregnancy, there's no reasons not to. In theory, it makes a little bit of sense, but in practice, it really doesn't.
 
If someone handed me a condom right now, I wouldn't think oh wow, now let me find someone to have sex with...

In fact when someone handed me a condom when I was 15, I thought the same thing, I had that condom till it expired.

So I just don't get the mindset.

We are failing in sexual education!!! You can't just preach abstinence, and you can't just preach wear a condom. We have to find a way to teach kids how emotional, intimate, and consequential that sex is even when safe.

But that's just me.
 
I think the anti-contraception argument comes from those who are using fear as their primary tactic to prevent people from having sex (and who assume that fear is the primary reason people aren't having sex). They feel that providing access to contraception takes away one of their primary tools.

But as Bonovox aptly pointed out, there are much more vital issues that need to be addressed that scare tactics do nothing to address.
 
Its a matter of fact now that students are living in a sexualised world, nothing is going to stop the freight train of sex slamming right through early teens, so lets just make sure they're protected physically.

A lot of students at my school are getting their periods, at 9/10/11 years of age. Their bodies have matured and technically they are ready and able to have children - its a horrible thought to think some 11 year old would have sex, but the truth is, it is happening. We can't bury our head in the sand, or threaten (and get physically violent which you KNOW happens) to really screw up a teenagers view on sex, but instead need to say ' i really don't want you to do this, but if something happens i want you to be prepared'

mind you, i don't have an 11 yr old daughter wanting to have sex :madwife:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
If someone handed me a condom right now, I wouldn't think oh wow, now let me find someone to have sex with...

In fact when someone handed me a condom when I was 15, I thought the same thing, I had that condom till it expired.

So I just don't get the mindset.

We are failing in sexual education!!! You can't just preach abstinence, and you can't just preach wear a condom. We have to find a way to teach kids how emotional, intimate, and consequential that sex is even when safe.

But that's just me.


I could not agree more completely.
 
dazzlingamy said:

mind you, i don't have an 11 yr old daughter wanting to have sex :madwife:

Exactly-I don't either and if I did there'd be lots of :madwife: going on about them wanting to have sex. But seriously, I would hope that since I would talk to them at an early age (daughter or son-boys need the same sort of talk and also need to learn respect for females, and themselves) about what sex really is all about and why it is best for their physical and mental and emotional well being to wait. I would want complete open communication, in my opinion that's the best and I think talking at an early age in the right way fosters that and the comfort level that's necessary for that. But all the best intentions don't always work perfectly, so if they don't kids need to be protected from at least the physical consequences and certainly pregnancy and disease. Now more than ever parents cannot hide their heads in the sand-not that they ever could. Personally I know how disappointed I was in my mother for her inability/refusal to deal with the whole issue, and I would never want that for any kids. Luckily I had the skills somehow to cope with those issues on my own, not every kid has that. I grew up in a different time and all that, but the fundamental issues were the same.

The school committee approved it

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=141436&ac=PHnws
 
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/17/susan-orr/

On Monday, President Bush appointed Susan Orr to oversee federal family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Orr, who is currently directing HHS child welfare programs, was touted by the administration as “highly qualified.”

But a look at Orr’s record shows that her strongest qualifications appear to be her right-wing credentials and endorsement of the Bush administration’s failed abstinence-only policies. Before joining HHS, Orr served as senior director for marriage and family care at the conservative Family Research Council and was an adjunct professor at Pat Robertson’s Regent University. Some highlights:

– In a 2001, Orr embraced a Bush administration proposal to “stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees” to cover a broad range of birth control. “We’re quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease,” said Orr.

– At the 2001 Conservative Political Action Conference, Orr cheered Bush’s endorsement of Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy,” which required NGOs receiving federal funds to “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” Orr said that it was proof Bush was pro-life “in his heart.”

– In a 2000 Weekly Standard article, Orr railed against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. “It’s not about choice,” said Orr. “It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.”

– Orr authored a paper in 2000 titled, “Real Women Stay Married.” In it she wrote that women should “think about focusing our eyes, not upon ourselves, but upon the families we form through marriage.”
 
Jeez - I remember my mother making info about sex available to us all the time. We didn't necessarily have a sit-down about it, but she had these two books that were about sex that we were encouraged to read whenever we wanted. Somehow I managed to keep my virginity until I was 23. I knew certain things could lead to a baby - and since I always found babies rather annoying little creatures, I wanted to stay as far away from that as I could. Not to mention it sounded painful to push an 8 pound anything out of any portion of my body, there was no way you could convince me that it would be a good idea to risk intercourse before I graduated high school (which was also important to me). Oh, and let's not forget all the pregnant girls I /did/ see, who looked so freakin' miserable..

Kids are generally smarter than parents would like to believe. Giving a girl birth control isn't actually going to make her go have sex. It's merely going to sit in a drawer, somewhere, most likely. I think few girls are even going to want to consider it at 13, anyway. Fooling around? Almost certainly. Actual sex? That's rare at that age. Not impossible, but rare. We have to start admitting to ourselves that once puberty hits, childhood ends and adulthood begins. We have to start treating teenagers as very young, inexperienced adults, not small children who should be playing with dolls.
 
Maybe I'm way off on this, but I really think it's the parent's responsibility to handle this, and all the ramifications from a situation where an 11-13 year-old's sexual activity.

As a society, we hold the parents responsible for children's behavior during this time. If a child demonstrates various behavior at school, we call the parents, etc...

With that logic, if a parent feels compelled to dispense birth control to their children, go for it. If they have other methods, go right ahead. If an 11 year-old becomes pregnant, it should be the parents responsibility to handle the situation, in the manner they see fit.

Ok, I'm sure there are many children without parents to consent, and in those cases, we have to rely on whatever state sponsored social work system is in place. School? I guess. But this kind of subject (should I have sex or not, should I begin birth control or not, NOT sex education) should be handled in a parent-child type of setting.

There are 11 year olds that still go to after school day-care etc... Should they be dispensing birth control at a day-care?
 
MrsSpringsteen,

I don't know much about this Orr person, but I find nothing offensive to the bullets you posted.

– In a 2001, Orr embraced a Bush administration proposal to “stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees” to cover a broad range of birth control. “We’re quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease,” said Orr.

Hmmm... Most plans don't cover birth control. There might be some folks on this board that are fortunate enough to have this, but I think it's rare. Federal workers (myself being one), get some good deals that we probably shouldn't when weighed against the average worker.

– At the 2001 Conservative Political Action Conference, Orr cheered Bush’s endorsement of Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy,” which required NGOs receiving federal funds to “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” Orr said that it was proof Bush was pro-life “in his heart.”

I can't imagine anyone endorsing a program the 'actively promoted abortion as a method of family planning'. Can you?

– In a 2000 Weekly Standard article, Orr railed against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. “It’s not about choice,” said Orr. “It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.”

Ok, I get her position. It's still up to the insurer, they are all different and if a program wants to cover b/c, good for them. I bet it has more to do with the 'day after pill' or actual abortions rather than condoms.

– Orr authored a paper in 2000 titled, “Real Women Stay Married.” In it she wrote that women should “think about focusing our eyes, not upon ourselves, but upon the families we form through marriage.”

I would hope 'real men' stay married too, especially when their families need them. I do my best to focus on my family and not myself at this stage in my life as well. Good parents are are largely selfless while raising their children. I'm getting ready to shell out close to 100k per year while both of my children go to college, and I couldn't be more proud. I haven't read the book, but I'm assuming that this is largely a play against marriages that produce several children, followed-up by an early divorce and all of the turmoil that 'sometimes' comes. I've seen it first hand, and have been saddened by these situations. Most of the damage is not because of the divorce, but because either both, or one parent is not supportive of the family, and is not selfless in their endeavor to support their children.

So, yeah, she's conservative, no surprise. I'm sure Hillary will appoint someone more to your liking. ;)
 
I'm a Mainer, but not really sure where I come down on this. A difficult issue for sure, but I guess it's reality.

It's disturbing, though, that after parents sign off on the health waiver, the school cannot disclose to parents what treatments and chemicals a middle school aged child might be putting into their bodies. Probably a legal issue...but I think even parents who don't give their kids much attention at all would want to know. They should know.

I understand that confidentiality might make it more likely for a kid to take the health services, but it also continues the non-communication between parents and children. Isn't non-communication the root problem?
 
Bluer White said:
It's disturbing, though, that after parents sign off on the health waiver, the school cannot disclose to parents what treatments and chemicals a middle school aged child might be putting into their bodies. Probably a legal issue...but I think even parents who don't give their kids much attention at all would want to know. They should know.

Then they shouldn't sign the waiver.
 
Back
Top Bottom