Good news: Maine set to offer prescription birth control to middle schoolers

posted at 8:45 am on October 17, 2007 by Allahpundit

Yeah, prescription. Condoms are already available. To 11-year-olds.

Look at it this way: You’d better cover the basics early if you want your 13-year-old to be able to follow along during those tricky Planned Parenthood “golden showers” seminars.

Learning curves, people, learning curves.

The Portland School Committee is poised to take up a proposal that would enable students at King Middle School to obtain birth control prescriptions from the school’s health center.

Under the plan scheduled for consideration Wednesday night, King would become the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to students in grades 6 through 8, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services.

King’s health center, which opened in 2000, already provides condoms as part of its reproductive health program. Prescription birth control, such as pills or patches, would be prescribed after a physical examination by a physician or nurse practitioner, said Lisa Belanger, who oversees Portland’s student health centers.

The centers require that students have written parental permission before being treated. Under state law, students are allowed to seek confidential health care and decide whether to inform their parents about the services they receive, Belanger said.

Sexual precociousness being a core indicator of “progress,” I’m cautiously optimistic that we’re on our way towards European standards of enlightenment. Exit question: What does the last paragraph in the blockquote mean? Are they saying that the centers are running afoul of state law by requiring parental permission? Or have the fascist wingnuts in Maine decided that a kid who’s still fully seven years away from majority actually does need the permission of his or her guardian before filling a birth control prescription?

Thanks to Slublog for the tip.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Arnold signed a bill last weekend that will require all textbooks in CA to include “non-discriminatory” information, it will soon get very bad here for any sort of family values.

bbz123 on October 17, 2007 at 8:53 AM

Forget the moral implications for a moment; is this kind of thing even healthy for a girl just starting puberty?

And no offense, but we’re supposed to rely on the school nurse to make the determination?

RD on October 17, 2007 at 8:54 AM

Forget the moral implications for a moment; is this kind of thing even healthy for a girl just starting puberty?

No, it’s not; it’s not really healthy for most people, and parents definitely should know if their kid is taking something like that, with all the potential side effects.

tikvah on October 17, 2007 at 8:56 AM

Progress.

No, hell in a hand basket!

ericire12 on October 17, 2007 at 8:57 AM

No, it’s not; it’s not really healthy for most people, and parents definitely should know if their kid is taking something like that, with all the potential side effects.

tikvah on October 17, 2007 at 8:56 AM

Unbelievable. Hormones to an 11-year-old, without the parents’ say-so, out from under the family doctor’s supervision.

I wonder who’s going to take responsibility when the kid has serious “unexplained” medical problems?

RD on October 17, 2007 at 9:02 AM

Give them the pills. We need to cut down on the 70% of wedlock babies.

SoulGlo on October 17, 2007 at 9:02 AM

And no offense, but we’re supposed to rely on the school nurse to make the determination?

Probably more like it will be the lunch lady.

ericire12 on October 17, 2007 at 9:03 AM

Arnold signed a bill last weekend that will require all textbooks in CA to include “non-discriminatory” information, it will soon get very bad here for any sort of family values.

bbz123 on October 17, 2007 at 8:53 AM

According to this article, they’re banning references to “mom and dad” and “husband and wife” unless there are homosexual examples provided as well. Crikey!

tikvah on October 17, 2007 at 9:07 AM

Arnold signed a bill last weekend that will require all textbooks in CA to include “non-discriminatory” information,

I guess the subject of the Civil War is off limits then because slavery has to be considered discriminatory. Right?

Bye, bye history class

ericire12 on October 17, 2007 at 9:09 AM

Why not just put hard-core porn in the DVD player at the preschool and be done with it?

highhopes on October 17, 2007 at 9:09 AM

WTF?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

Talon on October 17, 2007 at 9:10 AM

I love the jarring disconnects of the “progressive” mind.

Middleschoolers are “adult” enough to make birth control decisions (despite the fact that they are legally minors), yet twenty somethings who join the armed forces are all thumbsucking “children” and totally at the mercy of sleazy recruiters and Bushco propaganda.

Mike Honcho on October 17, 2007 at 9:12 AM

I wonder who’s going to take responsibility when the kid has serious “unexplained” medical problems?

RD on October 17, 2007 at 9:02 AM

That’s covered in their fifth-grade primer, “Abortion, Just Cool or Totally Awesome?”.

fogw on October 17, 2007 at 9:18 AM

Unbelievable. Hormones to an 11-year-old, without the parents’ say-so, out from under the family doctor’s supervision.

RD on October 17, 2007 at 9:02 AM

Actually, parental permission is required, which doesn’t make this any better. Isn’t it statutory rape to have sex at that age? Great parenting job, parents!

This is also a clue as to why Maine is known as Taxationland -

Maine has 27 school-based health centers, with 20 of them — including those in Portland — funded and overseen by the state, said Nancy Birkhimer, director of teen health programs for DHHS..

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 9:19 AM

Here is the Uber-Lib Bill Nemitz’ of the Portland Press Herald’s take on this story. He’s all for it of course.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 9:24 AM

What does the last paragraph in the blockquote mean?

I took it to mean that parental permission is required for a child to be treated there at all but that once they’ve got that permission, they’ll be able to get the pill without telling their parents.

Isn’t it statutory rape to have sex at that age?

Not if both kids are 11.

This is really a little sick though. At 11, many girls haven’t even had their first period yet. Birth control isn’t even necessary to prevent a pregnancy their bodies can’t yet have anyway.

Maybe the grownup has died, but I’m not seeing anyone let children be children either.

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 9:27 AM

Great… when does the school start handing out guns, cigs, and beer ?

elgeneralisimo on October 17, 2007 at 9:28 AM

It takes a village.

Wade on October 17, 2007 at 9:30 AM

There is no way a school can try to take the place of a parent. Even if there is no parent around, that’s just not the school’s job – it’s job is to educate the child and prepare her for her educational path. And, since when can a school nurse legally provide prescription medication to minors?

pullingmyhairout on October 17, 2007 at 9:32 AM

Exit answer: a dominatrix is coming to a kindergarten near you. We mustn’t be judgmental.

The language of the Maine perversion initiative is typical leftist-utopian doublespeak as only social scientists coupled with parasites lawyers (now there’s an ugly image) can conjure.

In short, the center requirement for parental permission runs counter to state law. Parents loose. The pervert minority advances their tyranny on the backs of children, once again.

A bigger question is to ask why is it the business of schools (government or otherwise) to address health concerns of minors? Who or what seeded such omnipotent omniscience to this elite class of academia? Anyone care to take a stab at the answer?

locomotivebreath1901 on October 17, 2007 at 9:33 AM

The article says nurse practioner, not nurse, which is why they could prescribe medicine.

/just an explanation, NOT an endorsement of this b.s.

MamaAJ on October 17, 2007 at 9:38 AM

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 9:27 AM

The age of consent in Maine is 16. So, if an 11 year old girl has sex with a 12 year old boy, presumably he could be charged with rape. Since girls are more precocious than boys, the odds are that the girl will be with an older boy.

This could be a great way to ruin a young boys life. The school implicitly endorses this behavior but if you actually act on it you could end up in court and branded a sex offender.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 9:39 AM

I know the idea seems outrageous to many of you, but honestly…..I don’t really think it’s a bad idea. I would pretty much favor this, begrudgingly (though I believe parental consent should be required before the medication is given).

This is sort of tied in with my argument in previous weeks regarding Rudy and social conservatives being generally unhappy with his, and other Republicans, positions on family values. Social conservatives need to face the harsh reality of America: they’ve pretty much LOST a significant portion of the culture war regarding those values. This isn’t a situation here in Maine where the ungodly, immoral liberals are trying to force sex education on 11-12 year olds, or provide them with contraception to sexualize them. It’s a different day and age now – kids even as young as this actually ARE having sex now. It’s an entirely different situation than 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, where that sort of thing was rare and just didn’t happen with kids that young. Now, it DOES happen. And it may disturb us all, but I have to agree with some of the more left-leaning individuals / groups out there who state that teaching abstinence alone is NOT the answer.

It’s a bitter pill to swallow. But this is how it is now.

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 9:40 AM

Evolution, folks.
We, and of course our precocious children, are advanced.
We were animals, we are animals, let them act on their animal urges–
Don’t try to stifle their natural processes.

Vanquisher on October 17, 2007 at 9:40 AM

Not to defend what is a ridiculous plan, I suspect I know one of the things behind the idea. The last time I was in Maine(about 2 weeks ago)their media were bemoaning the increasingly large numbers of single parent families(mostly women)and what it was costing the State to maintain them and their increasing numbers of dependents. Maine(apparently)has very generous child welfare compared with most of the other New England states and many welfare moms gravitate there. It also provides many privately run, not-for-profit centers scattered around the State which provide physical, mental and educational services for welfare moms and their kids completely(or mostly) free of charge–with the State picking up a large part of the tab for the centers, personnel and services provided. These must be costing them a lot. I think(Mainers please correct if wrong)these all came about because Maine used to have a large body of what the Feds call “rural poor”, but I don’t think that’s so true any more. I imagine they must be having sharply increasing problems.

jeanie on October 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM

I couldn’t figure out the last paragraph either – I took it the same way as Esthier, but that doesn’t make all that much sense…I really don’t know.

And I was seriously considering moving to Maine! Slublog, what’s up with your state man?

nailinmyeye on October 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Forget the moral implications for a moment; is this kind of thing even healthy for a girl just starting puberty?

No. I’ve recently read Unprotected by Dr. Miriam Grossman,and she points out that the cervical lining is just cells thin at this age, making it very easy to pick up HPV and other STDs; not to mention that many kidz will think being on the pill means “Hooray, no condoms!”

However, we all should be quaking in our boots about hormones in milk. And if you inhale one breath of second-hand smoke from a mile away, you’ll die. Right kids?

saint kansas on October 17, 2007 at 9:43 AM

A very good read about erosion of the family is in Laura Ingraham’s book Power to the People chapter one.

Wade on October 17, 2007 at 9:51 AM

It’s a bitter pill to swallow. But this is how it is now.

I feel you, Vyce. But to make a ridiculous analogy:

I’m an editor by trade and spend a lot of time removing apostrophes where there should not be apostrophes; e.g., its vs. it’s. Is the meaning still clear from context? Sure. But (1) it’s still wrong, and (2) accepting that which is wrong demands the assumption on my part that it’s beyond people’s ability to do it correctly. Of all things, this is the concept beyond human understanding?

I do think too many of us have given up on kids too early. Is abstinence really just beyond their ability? Can teenagers really not live without having sex? (I did, out of shyness and nerdiness more than any moral code.) I’m just not ready to buy the idea that we can’t expect more from ourselves. I believe a lot of kids wish we’d set the bar a little higher.

saint kansas on October 17, 2007 at 9:58 AM

“This is a service that is totally needed,” Rowe said. “It’s about very few kids, but they are kids who don’t have the same opportunities and access as other students.”

Sounds like they have “opportunities and access,” which is why these people see the “need” for prescription contraceptives. Note to the Parents: Try parenting.

Where does the pro-abortion idea of “Keep your government off of my body.” come in here?

AmericanDad on October 17, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Yeah, well, that’s just dumb. Many levels of dumb. Grades 6 through 8? Heck, I’m a proponent of birth control but there is something seriously wrong with this.

Krydor on October 17, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 9:40 AM

Just wow. Let me get this straight. The kids are going to have sex anyway, so let’s just give them condoms and contraceptives now. Hell, let’s give them cigarettes for afterwards.

Maybe your 11 and 12 years olds are having sex, but my son (16)and daughter (14)are not. Just because some parents are not paying attention to what is happening in their childrens lives, does not mean everyone should just give up on their children!

By that logic, since children that age do abuse drugs and alcohol, let’s go ahead and pay for that to, and provide it for them. They’re going to do it anyway, so why not?

If I lived in Maine, I’d be up in arms, having to pay my tax $ to pay for that nonsense! If you want to buy your 11 year old contraceptives because she is going to have sex anway, be my guest. Don’t extract my money which I earned.

By the way, abstinence works. Every. Single. Time. It’s. Tried.

You may think it takes a village to raise a child, but time has shown all it takes is a loving, caring, mother and father.

rightside on October 17, 2007 at 10:04 AM

Great… when does the school start handing out guns, cigs, and beer ?

elgeneralisimo on October 17, 2007 at 9:28 AM

Exactly, they’re going to do it anyway, right?

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 9:24 AM

After reading that column, I’m almost horrified at how naive he is. He really believes this will actually help to cut down the number of preteens having sex instead of encouraging more to have sex.

Some time ago I read a statistic that showed that despite access to birth control, other contraceptives and abortion, unwed pregnancies are up, not down. I don’t know if that statistic is still accurate, but it does point to the failure of contraception and abortion to keep unplanned pregnancies from occurring.

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 9:40 AM

Fine, the parents can get their kids condoms or prescriptions. The schools have no business being involved in this. This is a complicit endorsement of pre-teen sexual activity and the kids will talk about this. Next thing you know the 11 year olds who aren’t having sex feel left out.

Jeanie on October 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Everything you say is true, but it’s ironic that they are now bemoaning the number of single moms since they spent decades encouraging it.

When I lived in Maine, rarely a day went by without the Portland Press Herald doing a story about single moms. Most of these stories were sob stories and we were supposed to feel sorry for them and help them out with our tax dollars. By eliminating all stigmas attached to single motherhood, the net effect was that these stories encouraged women to be single moms. Look at all the coddling and attention they got!

If you don’t like being a teenager at home, all you had to do was get pregnant and you could move out, with the arms of the State embracing you.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 10:06 AM

this will reduce the incidence of those sticky situations where PP has to not inform the 13 year old’s parents that she was impregnated by her 29 year old boyfreind.

jummy on October 17, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Bill Nemitz is a clueless jackass. He is a consummate liberal who is obsessed with themes of privilege, race, gender et cetera.

I think that teen pregnancies are down a bit, but the younger children, and yes they are children, start having sex the larger the pool of potential pregnancies. (Watch Maine’s pre-teen pregnancy rate skyrocket if this plan sticks.)

However the reason they are down is because of abstinence education, not because of the availability of contraception.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 10:14 AM

While I certainly would prefer that children not have sex with each other, I always remember why Bill Clinton fired his Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders under pressure from the people who will howl the loudest about what Maine is doing here. If no one is willing to say a few nice words about sexual self-reliance in our culture’s constant promotion of non-self-reliant sex, then our children will believe that they should have sex with each other. It becomes hard to argue with the Maine program if we oppose single teenage mother households.

thuja on October 17, 2007 at 10:16 AM

jummy on October 17, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Or stepfather, or mom’s boyfriend.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 10:17 AM

The age of consent in Maine is 16. So, if an 11 year old girl has sex with a 12 year old boy, presumably he could be charged with rape.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 9:39 AM

I’m confused though. If that’s true, then the boy cannot consent to sex either, so how could he be prosecuted? Wouldn’t the girl be exactly as guilty of having sex with someone who cannot legally consent to sex?

Overall though, I do agree. Most young girls are going to be having sex with older boys. There should be an obligation to report this as rape.

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Let’s see. In schools:

Aspirin – no
Birth control – yes
Abortion bus hauling you daughter off without consent – yes

I get it am getting it forced on me.

We should vote Dimocrap why?

On-my-soap-box on October 17, 2007 at 10:19 AM

It becomes hard to argue with the Maine program if we oppose single teenage mother households.

thuja on October 17, 2007 at 10:16 AM

That is an absurd conclusion! And do you think that we really need a Jocelyn Elders to teach kids about “sexual self-reliance”? That’s like saying that no human being would have figured out how to have sex without a government advocate explaining it to them.

Moreover, many of these women want to be single mothers. It’s the cool thing to do, dontcha know.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 10:20 AM

However the reason they are down is because of abstinence education, not because of the availability of contraception.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 10:14 AM

This is basically what I was getting at. If kids are so irresponsible that they’ll have sex anyway, then they’re likely also so irresponsible that they either won’t use the free contraceptives properly or won’t bother using them at all.

These are kids after all. It takes a certain amount of disciple to remember to take that pill at the same time of day everyday.

I once knew someone who skipped a pill and decided to have sex anyway. At first she was going to raise the baby, but when her boyfriend left her, she was directed by the school’s counseling program to an abortion clinic. All they did at her appointment was give her anti-depressants, which would have slowly killed her child anyway, and send her to the clinic.

We have a society that is allergic to personal responsibility. I’m not looking forward to what that will look like in 20 years.

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 10:18 AM

I don’t know the intricacies of the law as far as prosecution goes. I guess it would depend on whether or not one of the parties decided to take the other one to court, and I don’t know how far the case would go.

We have all seen cases where very young children are accused of “sexual harassment” for innocently showing affection another child, often with serious consequences.

As for full-blown pre-teen/teen sex, I guarantee you that, more often than not, the boy is made out to be the bad apple who preyed on the innocent young girl, when very often the girl is the seducer.

The bottom line is that none of this makes any sense, but then again that pretty well defines liberalism, doesn’t it.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Maybe the “kids” that are targetted are that special… some areas have higher rate of teen pregnancies than others, so maybe it would make sense to target those areas before the kids there reach their astonishingly early age of pregnancy.

AlexB on October 17, 2007 at 10:34 AM

This is pitiful, what are these schools thinking? 11-year olds…
If this ever happens in my school there will be more than hell to pay.
I hope parents are up in arms about it, but I won’t hold my breath.

aclark on October 17, 2007 at 10:40 AM

the pedophiles are ecstatic. vermont gives them a wink and nod; and maine gives them a ticket to main street. nice.

lorien1973 on October 17, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Just wow. Let me get this straight. The kids are going to have sex anyway, so let’s just give them condoms and contraceptives now. Hell, let’s give them cigarettes for afterwards.

Maybe your 11 and 12 years olds are having sex, but my son (16)and daughter (14)are not. Just because some parents are not paying attention to what is happening in their childrens lives, does not mean everyone should just give up on their children!

By that logic, since children that age do abuse drugs and alcohol, let’s go ahead and pay for that to, and provide it for them. They’re going to do it anyway, so why not?

If I lived in Maine, I’d be up in arms, having to pay my tax $ to pay for that nonsense! If you want to buy your 11 year old contraceptives because she is going to have sex anway, be my guest. Don’t extract my money which I earned.

By the way, abstinence works. Every. Single. Time. It’s. Tried.

You may think it takes a village to raise a child, but time has shown all it takes is a loving, caring, mother and father.

rightside on October 17, 2007 at 10:04 AM

See, this is what I’m talking about. People get OUTRAGED! over a program like this that they get lost in the reality of the situation, and start bringing up things that have nothing to do with the matter at hand (your cigarette & alcohol remarks). The sad situation in this country is that, YES, children ARE doing it. If your children are not, good for you – you’ve well done your job as a parent. You even state that it takes a loving mother and father to raise a child right; I agree. But that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? Most of the kids who have sex at such a young age and are in danger of teenage pregnancies and STDs don’t come from that sort of background.

I’m trying to express that this is the reality we live in now, though. I work, in part, with teenagers as part of my employment, and you’d be horrified, as a parent, at some of the (sexual) behaviors that young teens / preteens engage in these days, who think nothing of it. Do I like that reality? No, I don’t. But ignoring it is just ignoring the problem.

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 10:50 AM

This isn’t a situation here in Maine where the ungodly, immoral liberals are trying to force sex education on 11-12 year olds, or provide them with contraception to sexualize them. It’s a different day and age now – kids even as young as this actually ARE having sex now. It’s an entirely different situation than 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, where that sort of thing was rare and just didn’t happen with kids that young.
Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 9:40 AM

It doesn’t matter if they are ungodly, immoral, or just stupid. The schools shouldn’t be in the business of providing birth control. Let the parents take the girls to the family doctor if they want them on the pill.
It’s not just a social conservative objection. Even Libertarians would agree that this is not the role of the Government, neither at the federal nor the local level; it’s not the role of the public school system. Teach our children how to read and write, leave the birth control decisions to the parents.
And if this is taxpayer-funded birth control, which I’m assuming it is, that’s even more absurd.
The fact that kids are getting pregnant at younger and younger ages is terrible. Providing little girls with free birth control at school is not the solution.

Dork B. on October 17, 2007 at 10:55 AM

I believe a lot of kids wish we’d set the bar a little higher.

saint kansas on October 17, 2007 at 9:58 AM

This has everything to do with parents wanting to be “their child’s best friend” instead of a parent.

Years ago, moms and dads could stop bad behavior by just “looking” at their kid with that “all knowing evil eye.” Nowadays, kids don’t have that healthy fear of their parents – the fear that their parents will be disappointed. This is because parents don’t hold the line enough with their kids. They don’t say “no, because I said so.” Everything is a negotiation with their kids. This is not parenting and it is not teaching boundaries.

When parents grow some b*lls again and start telling their kids affirmatively “no,” then we might just start seeing kids have more self respect and self reliance.

pullingmyhairout on October 17, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Strong argument for more private/charter schools. No wonder there’s more and more of them and expensive to boot. School vouchers will become nationwide in the future.

countywolf on October 17, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Esthier,

You are exactly right about them not being responsible enough to take contraception every day.

I am not at all clear on the facts at this point! Fox just did an interview with some sex specialist and Megan Kelly seemed to indicate that the parents only give permission to use the health center at the school for whatever reason (like getting an aspirin) but under this proposal they do not give permission to hand out contraception.

I thought that they found out that a few kids were having sex through an anonymous survey, but this same Fox story seemed to indicate that the info came out from kids visiting the health center. If that’s the case, then they know which kids are having sex and which aren’t. Since the age of consent is 16, shouldn’t they be informing the parents and let the parents take it from there?

Doug Gardner, the head of the Health dept. provided Fox with a statement which essentially said that although these kids should not be having sex it is “the schools responsibility” to provide access to contraception. How about sending a letter home to parents reminding them that kids as young as 11 could be having sex and your kid could be one of them.

The End.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 11:05 AM

In addition to all the other reasons why this is bad, what about drug interaction. The school nurse and the family pediatrician will have no way to coordinate prescriptions. Neither will know what else she is taking.

Liberals are interested in quality health care my a$$.

Nosferightu on October 17, 2007 at 11:06 AM

There’s no way to parody the left — Rush Limbaugh, once again, predicts the future 20 years ahead.

Social conservatives — don’t you ever get tired of being right? No wonder the squishy social lib GOPrs hate you…

Jaibones on October 17, 2007 at 11:07 AM

If you are 11 years old and not fiscally responsible enough to budget contraception into your weekly allowance and/or paper route salary, then you shouldn’t be having sex. There, I said it.

BohicaTwentyTwo on October 17, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Doug Gardner, the head of the Health dept. provided Fox with a statement which essentially said that although these kids should not be having sex it is “the schools responsibility” to provide access to contraception. How about sending a letter home to parents reminding them that kids as young as 11 could be having sex and your kid could be one of them.

That’s a good point. I’m sure many of these kids have horrible parents, but without informing their parents, they’re not even giving them a chance.

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 11:09 AM

The People’s Republic of Maine is the flagship for socialism in this country, makes Canada look conservative, and is funded from out of State like Vermont and New Hampshire. Democratic candidates are fully funded from special interest groups and tow-the-line, sub-standard candidates abound.

The governor of Maine is a test-tube, liberal political hack. He has tried to have the State take over all prisons and hospitals from local and private ownership. No one seems to vote for this guy, but he and his relatives get elected each time. A good Catholic at election time that spends the rest of the year surrounded with “Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries” signs and bringing in Somalians to destroy the State economy. I guess they figured that giving children birth control is cheaper than having The United Way fund their abortions.

“Dirigo” used to mean something in Maine, but now they follow the out of State cash-cow far left.

Hening on October 17, 2007 at 11:27 AM

I took it to mean that parental permission is required for a child to be treated there at all but that once they’ve got that permission, they’ll be able to get the pill without telling their parents.

The school will probably hide that permision in vaguely worded phrases and stick it some form the parents sign at the beginning of the school year not realizing just exactly what they are giving the school permission to do.

FireFly on October 17, 2007 at 11:31 AM

From what I heard of Fox yesterday, if a partent wants a child to received treatment at school, he/she has to sign a general release to receive medical treatment; this general release also includes permission for the school to dispense contraceptives to the children. There is not a separate release specific to contraceptives.

Sounds like a form of hide-and-seek, only in this case it deals with a child’s health.

Sickening.

madmonkphotog on October 17, 2007 at 11:44 AM

I do not believe that birth control and condoms cause people to have sex BUT I do believe there’s an appropriate time to be given this sort of stuff and I do believe this stuff should be taken care of by private families not by the state.

And that the parents have to sign a general release is such an BS move by liberal administrators, means that in order to give your child some fracking advil you have to also consent to let the school give your middle school kid contraceptives. Its cowardly and not standing for what the libs believe in.

Defector01 on October 17, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Eleven year olds can’t control themselves and are going to have sex anyway, we should give them contraceptives to mitigate the damage.

Rapists can’t control themselves and are going to rape anyway, we should give them prostitutes to mitigate the damage.

Murderous psychopaths can’t control themselves and are going to shoot people anyway, we should give them shooting lessons to mitigate the damage.

[People doing bad things] can’t control themselves and are going to [do bad thing] anyway, we should give them [enabling thing] to mitigate the damage.

angryoldfatman on October 17, 2007 at 12:08 PM

fracking advil

Defector01 on October 17, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Battlestar fan?

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Fine, the parents can get their kids condoms or prescriptions. The schools have no business being involved in this. This is a complicit endorsement of pre-teen sexual activity and the kids will talk about this. Next thing you know the 11 year olds who aren’t having sex feel left out.

Agreed.

dedalus on October 17, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Battlestar fan?

Esthier

Yeah and is a good substitute with general company for F***

Defector01 on October 17, 2007 at 12:31 PM

I’m trying to express that this is the reality we live in now, though. I work, in part, with teenagers as part of my employment, and you’d be horrified, as a parent, at some of the (sexual) behaviors that young teens / preteens engage in these days, who think nothing of it. Do I like that reality? No, I don’t. But ignoring it is just ignoring the problem.

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 10:50 AM

So in your mind the only choices are ignoring it or encouraging it?

Quisp on October 17, 2007 at 12:39 PM

To the exit question – it just sounds good politically to pretend that parents’ approval is requested. In reality, by law, every kid can claim “confidendial health” and the school is covered. The parents’ approval is just a pro forma.

Entelechy on October 17, 2007 at 12:49 PM

I wonder who’s going to take responsibility when the kid has serious “unexplained” medical problems?

RD on October 17, 2007 at 9:02 AM

S-CHIP, man, S-CHIP.

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 9:40 AM

Ignoring the argument about whether making the stuff available is ok… When I trained as a volunteer at Birth Choice, I saw some research that there were women who became infertile after taking the pill/other hormone birth controls — mainly by damage to the cervix, and can certainly lead to cancer as well. Not to mention they do not protect from STDs. There are just so many more consequences to those kinds of choices than just pregnancy. (And even if they become pregnant there are so many people who can’t that would love to adopt those children.) Parents should be invested in as an exceptional birth control device in their own right…or mandatory volunteering at a daycare :-).

Are parents in Maine supporting this move?

Numenorean on October 17, 2007 at 12:54 PM

Uhm…liberal conundrum here, no? Won’t this stop a lot of abortions? You can’t abort “fetal tissue” if it ain’t there.

/left-wing kook brain cramp

SouthernGent on October 17, 2007 at 1:00 PM

I work, in part, with teenagers as part of my employment…

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 10:50 AM

That’s great. Hey, can you tell us where you work? I’m just going to make sure my kids don’t go anywhere near there curious.

John from WuzzaDem on October 17, 2007 at 1:27 PM

John from WuzzaDem on October 17, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Hear hear, brother!

angryoldfatman on October 17, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Uhm…liberal conundrum here, no? Won’t this stop a lot of abortions? You can’t abort “fetal tissue” if it ain’t there.

/left-wing kook brain cramp

SouthernGent on October 17, 2007 at 1:00 PM

When Big Sister takes over there will be forced sterilization for certain groups deemed eligible. All others will be required to file a Pregnancy Permit Request form at their local Fertility Bureau. Anyone found to be pregnant without the proper paperwork will be required to make a donation to the FTC (Fetal Tissue Collective).

But hey, free day care!

Dork B. on October 17, 2007 at 1:51 PM

But hey, free mandatory Platonic day care!

Dork B. on October 17, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Fixed it for you.

angryoldfatman on October 17, 2007 at 1:57 PM

Uhm…liberal conundrum here, no? Won’t this stop a lot of abortions? You can’t abort “fetal tissue” if it ain’t there.

/left-wing kook brain cramp

SouthernGent on October 17, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Seriously though, what is the excuse for needing abortions when the State now offers free, easily accessible birth control to all of child-bearing age? THERE IS NO EXCUSE now. Even little 11 year olds getting raped by family members won’t need abortions now. And we all know that is why abortions are so necessary in the first place.

How will Arnold’s new laws affect this in CA? I mean, what about those boys who identify themselves as girls and want to take BC pills? Arnold’s new law would require those boys get BC pills! Nanny state madness!!

NTWR on October 17, 2007 at 2:05 PM

I have an 11 year old daughter, and the thought that birth control would be available for her at school of all places just makes me sick. She is still a little girl!!! Don’t these people believe in letting kids be kids?? Abstinence needs to be taught!! Especially at this age. I’ve had many talks with my children (I also have a 14 yo son), and abstinence is my main focus. Am I stupid enough to think my kids will not have sex before marriage? No, though I sure can hope and pray. And I’ve talked with them about that. And I haven’t just talked about abstinence and sex once or twice, but over and over over again.

Parents need to be the ones to step up and take up these conversations with their kids and not leave it up to the schools. But sadly, a lot of girls who are having sex at this age do it because, more than likely, they were and are being sexually molested. Maybe schools should start looking into that.

StephC on October 17, 2007 at 2:09 PM

as we spiral downward

Drtuddle on October 17, 2007 at 2:14 PM

madmonkphotog on October 17, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Thanks for the clarification! That is so outrageous.

I would also like a doctor’s advice here. Putting aside drug interaction concerns, isn’t it a bit dangerous to be giving birth control to kids this young? What effect do these hormones have on their development?

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 2:21 PM

Oh, and here’s the link to Arnold’s new anti-gender laws story. I can only imagine how many horny teenage boys will pretend to identify themselves as girls to get into the girl’s locker room.

NTWR on October 17, 2007 at 2:27 PM

What is this? A contest between east coast and west coast to see who can be the most corrupt?

First, Ahnuld the Guvenatah passes a law allowing girls and boys to use the same dressing rooms and restrooms, then this.

Actually perhaps this is the answer to the illegal immigration problem. Make the country so crappy that no one would want to come here at all.

Lone Star on October 17, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Yeah and is a good substitute with general company for F***

Defector01 on October 17, 2007 at 12:31 PM

I agree, but I rag on my friend for saying it and couldn’t resist mentioning it in this case.

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Let’s just get it over with – the Socialists should be allowed to create their own Lebensborn. Children shouldn’t even be a parental concern. The State should determine who should, or shouldn’t, have children.

This country is on the verge of a catastrophic ruin – Unfortunately, I’ll live to see its destruction. I am sick at heart over the fall of America.

OhEssYouCowboys on October 17, 2007 at 2:39 PM

That’s great. Hey, can you tell us where you work? I’m just going to make sure my kids don’t go anywhere near there curious.

John from WuzzaDem on October 17, 2007 at 1:27 PM

That’s nice. Imply that I’m somehow inappropriate with children because you disagree with me on a political issue.

I work primarily with providing legal representation for teenagers and disabled children. Nothing improper about that.

And it’s just not true that providing contraceptives equals ENCOURAGING underage sex. That’s ridiculous logic and you know it.

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 2:42 PM

NTWR on October 17, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Time to recall Arnold. Someone should dress in drag, apply for a job in the Governor’s office, demand to use the Ladies Room, and see what happens.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 2:53 PM

That’s nice. Imply that I’m somehow inappropriate with children because you disagree with me on a political issue.

You’re right Vyce. I’ve read your points with interest, though not agreeing. Didn’t see the point of that cheapshot.

dedalus on October 17, 2007 at 2:53 PM

And it’s just not true that providing contraceptives equals ENCOURAGING underage sex. That’s ridiculous logic and you know it.

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Your logic is ridiculous. Of course it encourages kids to have sex. It would never occur to most 11 year olds to engage in sex, but hey if authority figures are handing out contraception, it must be the thing to do, and maybe they’ll even get extra credit in sex ed!

How do these teens even find you to get your services? Are they directed to you by State agencies?

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 2:57 PM

And it’s just not true that providing contraceptives equals ENCOURAGING underage sex. That’s ridiculous logic and you know it.

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 2:42 PM

“Now just because we’ve given you these shooting lessons, Mr. Psycho van Shooterman, doesn’t mean you need to buy a gun and shoot somebody. It’s just a FALLACY that these lessons will encourage you to do… Mr. Shooterman? Where did he go? And where is the .357 I let him borrow for the range? Hmm… Oh well, no worries, it’s not like we ENCOURAGED him.”

angryoldfatman on October 17, 2007 at 2:59 PM

I can only imagine how many horny teenage boys will pretend to identify themselves as girls to get into the girl’s locker room.

Sounds like half a plan, though the razzing from the other guys seems like a high cost just to see some nekkid ladies.

dedalus on October 17, 2007 at 2:59 PM

“Now just because we’ve given you these shooting lessons, Mr. Psycho van Shooterman, doesn’t mean you need to buy a gun and shoot somebody. It’s just a FALLACY that these lessons will encourage you to do… Mr. Shooterman? Where did he go? And where is the .357 I let him borrow for the range? Hmm… Oh well, no worries, it’s not like we ENCOURAGED him.”

I agree with some aspects of the analogy. Though, the teen sex problem is more challenging in that teenage boys carry their own guns and bullets with them all the time and they want to use them with or without training.

dedalus on October 17, 2007 at 3:17 PM

All I can say is Thank God! I have a SON! I only have one penis to worry about. People with Daughters have to worry about ALL of them.

What the hell ever happened to Parents teaching their kids how to behave. Sex at 11! I don’t get it! We grew up during the sexual revolution and we still didn’t have sex at 11. 0r 12, or 13 ….

I had a sex ed teacher that said something when I was about 15 and I never forgot it. He said sex at this age is just masturbating, you’re just using the girl instead of your hand. Sex with Love is worth waiting for, and 100 times more fulfilling. He was right.

Masscon on October 17, 2007 at 3:30 PM

dedalus on October 17, 2007 at 3:17 PM

I think in the analogy, Mr. Psycho van Shooterman does as well. The point just seems to be that with training and free bullets, Mr. Psycho van Shooterman’s job is a lot easier.

And for all those horny teen boys, knowing the girl is on the pill is like putting a target on people for Mr. Shooterman.

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 3:48 PM

My understanding it was that there 5 kids who admitted they were having sex……5! So, either they were 5 boys doing what they do best which is lie or one girl four boys. But , at any rate, any one ever think to take them aside and educate them? This is typical socio marxist thought….. only 5 kids let’s feed everyone BCP’s

MNDavenotPC on October 17, 2007 at 4:07 PM

And for all those horny teen boys, knowing the girl is on the pill is like putting a target on people for Mr. Shooterman.

At least there are federal laws that attempt to keep a gun away from Psycho. Boys show up everyday to school and to every party with both gun and ammo.

I don’t think the pill makes girls too much more desirable to boys–since their amps already have been turned to 11. I do agree that the pill makes “the targets” themselves much more receptive to the boy’s flirtation.

11 though seems crazy young to be even talking about this.

dedalus on October 17, 2007 at 4:26 PM

11 though seems crazy young to be even talking about this.

dedalus on October 17, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Couldn’t agree more.

I don’t think the pill makes girls too much more desirable to boys–since their amps already have been turned to 11. I do agree that the pill makes “the targets” themselves much more receptive to the boy’s flirtation.

The only reason I think it makes them more of a target is because the message those girls are sending is “I’m interesting in having sex.”

Girls who aren’t on the pill might be interested in waiting.

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Your logic is ridiculous. Of course it encourages kids to have sex. It would never occur to most 11 year olds to engage in sex, but hey if authority figures are handing out contraception, it must be the thing to do, and maybe they’ll even get extra credit in sex ed!

How do these teens even find you to get your services? Are they directed to you by State agencies?

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Ah, I see. This is where you’re perhaps failing to understand my argument. Your argument is that this will encourage underage sex. My argument, from the beginning of this thread, is that underage sexual activity – yes, even with children that young – is already happening. It’s not a matter of “will this cause it”, it’s a matter of “it’s already happening now”.

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 4:31 PM

I know the idea seems outrageous to many of you

It is outrageous. I’ve been looking, and as far as I can tell the FDA has not even approved birth control pills for girls that age. Giving girls steroid hormones on a daily basis is not a benign act. Barring medical necessity I would say its irresponsible if not unethical for anyone to prescibe that kind of treatment. That a child might have sex with an “adult” male does not rise to that level -there are better options.

There are worse things than getting pregnant.

taznar on October 17, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 4:31 PM

I don’t think anyone is trying to say it isn’t happening already. I think people are only saying that more children will do this if they are handed contraceptions.

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 4:42 PM

There are worse things than getting pregnant.

taznar on October 17, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Tell that to the Left. I’m not sure they agree.

Esthier on October 17, 2007 at 4:45 PM

My argument, from the beginning of this thread, is that underage sexual activity – yes, even with children that young – is already happening. It’s not a matter of “will this cause it”, it’s a matter of “it’s already happening now”.

Vyce on October 17, 2007 at 4:31 PM

That is not the school’s responsibility. It is not the government’s responsibility. By trying to protect 5 kids they are bringing hundreds down with them as they do yet one more thing to glamorize sex for children.

Besides, I thought condoms were the answer! What do we need pills for?

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Test.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2