Log in

View Full Version : School to provide full range of birthcontrol



coda
18th October 2007, 13:27
Middle School in Maine to Offer Birth Control Pills, Patches to Pupils in Grades 6 Through 8
(AP) 07:27:54 AM (ET), Thursday, October 18, 2007 (PORTLAND, Maine)

Pupils at a city middle school will be able to get birth control pills and patches at their student health center after the local school board approved the proposal Wednesday evening.

The plan, offered by city health officials, makes King Middle School 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.

There are no national figures on how many middle schools, where most students range in age from 11 to 13, provide such services.

"It's very rare that middle schools do this," said Divya Mohan, a spokeswoman for the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care.

The Portland School Committee voted 7-2 for the measure.

Chairman John Coyne voted against it, saying he felt providing the birth control was a parental responsibility. The other no vote came from Ben Meiklejohn, who said the consent form does not clearly define the services being offered.

Opponents cited religious and health objections.

Diane Miller said she felt the plan was against religion and against God. Another opponent, Peter Doyle, said he felt it violated the rights of parents and puts students at risk of cancer because of hormones in the pill.

A supporter, Richard Verrier, said it's not enough to depend on parents to protect their children because there may be students who can't discuss things with their parents.

Condoms have been available since 2000 to King students who have parental permission to be treated at its student health center.

About one-fourth of student health centers that serve at least one grade of adolescents 11 and older dispense some form of contraception, said Mohan, whose Washington-based organization represents more than 1,700 school-based centers nationwide.

At King Middle School, birth control prescriptions will be given after a student undergoes a physical exam by a physician or nurse practitioner, said Lisa Belanger, who oversees Portland's student health centers.

Students treated at the centers must first get written parental permission, but under state law such treatment is confidential, and students decide for themselves whether to tell their parents about the services they receive.

Five of the 134 students who visited King's health center during the 2006-07 school year reported having sexual intercourse, said Amanda Rowe, lead nurse in Portland's school health centers.

A high school in Topeka, Kan., stopped providing free condoms to students Wednesday after district officials learned of the month-old program. The district has a policy against providing contraceptives.

(This version CORRECTS vote to 7-2, the spelling of John Coyne's name and that condoms have been available since 2000.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TC
20th October 2007, 20:55
Thats great.

Although, ideally, they should be dispensing birth control without prescription or requiring a physical exam or parental permission.



Diane Miller said she felt the plan was against religion and against God.

God wants more teen pregnancy, just like republicans.


Another opponent, Peter Doyle, said he felt it violated the rights of parents and puts students at risk of cancer because of hormones in the pill.

That makes a lot of sense considering that birth control pills tend to actually reduce cancer risks...

Comrade Rage
20th October 2007, 21:48
At least you don't need parental permission to hand out condoms. I volunteered a while back with a group that did that.

Comrade Nadezhda
22nd October 2007, 16:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:55 pm
Thats great.

Although, ideally, they should be dispensing birth control without prescription or requiring a physical exam or parental permission.



Diane Miller said she felt the plan was against religion and against God.

God wants more teen pregnancy, just like republicans.


Another opponent, Peter Doyle, said he felt it violated the rights of parents and puts students at risk of cancer because of hormones in the pill.

That makes a lot of sense considering that birth control pills tend to actually reduce cancer risks...
Yes, unfortunately in a nation highly regarding religious ideals - this becomes a problem.

In Wisconsin it is legal for phamacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions- it's also legal for a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion-- so basically what would happen if all doctors did so? Well, that's the whole purpose. The bourgeois state wants that- 'one nation under god' :rolleyes: such idiotic law and practice needs to be eliminated.

and this whole concept of abstinance- it isnt possible- so isnt it better to supply teens with birth control than have them become pregnant-- or is that just based on religious ideals why neo-cons advocate for this? it's just idiotic as far as i'm concerned.

but your post completely addresses the point I have been trying to make.

TC
22nd October 2007, 17:32
and this whole concept of abstinance- it isnt possible-

lets not wimp out here and make claims about whats not possible as a way of side stepping the real ethical/moral disagreement here:

Abstinence really is possible, but its not desirable. The issue is not 'teenagers will have sex so what do we do about it', because its obvious that some teenagers don't have sex and that it is basically a choice, the real issue is that teenagers have a right to have sex without pregnancy.

Comrade Nadezhda
22nd October 2007, 18:05
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:32 am

and this whole concept of abstinance- it isnt possible-

lets not wimp out here and make claims about whats not possible as a way of side stepping the real ethical/moral disagreement here:

Abstinence really is possible, but its not desirable. The issue is not 'teenagers will have sex so what do we do about it', because its obvious that some teenagers don't have sex and that it is basically a choice, the real issue is that teenagers have a right to have sex without pregnancy.
yes, i agree with that.

Kwisatz Haderach
23rd October 2007, 08:04
Ironically enough, I agree with TragicClown on this issue.

I'd also like to add that the argument that birth control encourages promiscuity is ridiculous - it is akin to saying that we should not have seatbelts or airbags in cars because safety features encourage reckless driving. In fact, using this line of logic, we should strive to make all human activities as unsafe as possible in order to promote cautious behaviour. It's absurd.

Human beings spent a great deal of time and creative effort to invent all sorts of safety features that reduce the risks of various useful or pleasurable activities - from driving cars to operating heavy machinery to sports to antivirus programs on your computer. Why should sex be any different?

To follow up on my car analogy, saying that "teenagers will have sex and there's nothing you can do about it" is like saying that "people will drive cars and there's nothing you can do about it" - in other words, it's plainly not true (although it is true that most teenagers have sex and most people drive). We install airbags and seatbelts on cars not because driving is somehow unavoidable, but because we want to make things safer for those people who choose to drive.

Comrade Nadezhda
23rd October 2007, 15:56
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 23, 2007 02:04 am
Ironically enough, I agree with TragicClown on this issue.

I'd also like to add that the argument that birth control encourages promiscuity is ridiculous - it is akin to saying that we should not have seatbelts or airbags in cars because safety features encourage reckless driving. In fact, using this line of logic, we should strive to make all human activities as unsafe as possible in order to promote cautious behaviour. It's absurd.

Human beings spent a great deal of time and creative effort to invent all sorts of safety features that reduce the risks of various useful or pleasurable activities - from driving cars to operating heavy machinery to sports to antivirus programs on your computer. Why should sex be any different?

To follow up on my car analogy, saying that "teenagers will have sex and there's nothing you can do about it" is like saying that "people will drive cars and there's nothing you can do about it" - in other words, it's plainly not true (although it is true that most teenagers have sex and most people drive). We install airbags and seatbelts on cars not because driving is somehow unavoidable, but because we want to make things safer for those people who choose to drive.
Exactly-- that's the point. However, the conservatives like to argue that teenagers don't have the right to decide this for themself.

The same thing is argued in regard to abortion.

Wouldn't it make sense though-- if they don't want teens to have abortions and there to be need for-- shouldn't they be for providing contraception? :huh:

What they are actually doing is promoting unwanted pregnancy.

In regard to health, which I think is a far more important issue- it is based on complete ignorance.

If parental permission wasn't required for teens to get birth control- there wouldn't be so many of them getting pregnant.

It's not about whether or not someone will have sex- it's about what can be done to eliminate the risks so that it is safer.

Eleftherios
24th October 2007, 03:31
I think that the school board made the right choice. If some teenagers want to have sex but have no way of getting a condom or other contraceptive, they might have unsafe sex, which could lead to many extremely undesirable consequences.

Comrade Nadezhda
24th October 2007, 15:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:31 pm
I think that the school board made the right choice. If some teenagers want to have sex but have no way of getting a condom or other contraceptive, they might have unsafe sex, which could lead to many extremely undesirable consequences.
which is why it is purely ignorant to deny them the right to contraception.

LSD
29th October 2007, 11:44
lets not wimp out here and make claims about whats not possible as a way of side stepping the real ethical/moral disagreement here: ...the real issue is that teenagers have a right to have sex without pregnancy.

Thank you.

It's about time that someone said it. I just got through watching a television show in which a lawyer proclaimed to a unanimous audience that "15 is too young to bew having sex".

And this was on a show that someone suggested I watch because it promoted sex-ed and knocked "abstinenence only" education ...and it did, but it did it in that frustrating conservative way where sex is portrayed as a nescessarily evil whic must be endured instead of a pleasurable activity who's risks can be mitigated.

I get it, I do, parents are uncomfortable with the notion of their sons and daughters as sexual animals. It's a socio-biological response and probably a useful one, but it does make their children's lives unnescessarily difficult.

Of course, ultimately all these guestions of culture and "morality" come down to upbringing because that's how social values are propagated. There's very little logic in sex.

So all I can say is I'm glad I grew up in a tolerant houseold, becuase I recognize that a good part of my respect for others' rights to fuck whomever/however they chose comes from my being given that same freedom.

Hopefully exposing school children to that kind of openess early can help them as well. Certainly there can be nothing hamful in giving them as much protection as possible from the dangers which actually do exist.

Comrade Nadezhda
29th October 2007, 15:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:44 am

lets not wimp out here and make claims about whats not possible as a way of side stepping the real ethical/moral disagreement here: ...the real issue is that teenagers have a right to have sex without pregnancy.

Thank you.

It's about time that someone said it. I just got through watching a television show in which a lawyer proclaimed to a unanimous audience that "15 is too young to bew having sex".

And this was on a show that someone suggested I watch because it promoted sex-ed and knocked "abstinenence only" education ...and it did, but it did it in that frustrating conservative way where sex is portrayed as a nescessarily evil whic must be endured instead of a pleasurable activity who's risks can be mitigated.

I get it, I do, parents are uncomfortable with the notion of their sons and daughters as sexual animals. It's a socio-biological response and probably a useful one, but it does make their children's lives unnescessarily difficult.

Of course, ultimately all these guestions of culture and "morality" come down to upbringing because that's how social values are propagated. There's very little logic in sex.

So all I can say is I'm glad I grew up in a tolerant houseold, becuase I recognize that a good part of my respect for others' rights to fuck whomever/however they chose comes from my being given that same freedom.

Hopefully exposing school children to that kind of openess early can help them as well. Certainly there can be nothing hamful in giving them as much protection as possible from the dangers which actually do exist.
I agree with all you have said there, LSD.

It's unfortunate that conservative viewpoints on these issues have led to the formation of certain laws (regarding contraception, sexual activity, abortion, etc).

Indeed, society needs to be more open to the fact that- all humans are sexual beings-- which is by nature. No amount of "morals" can change that.