Colorado free contraception = 40% drop in teen abortion/pregnancies (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

I can't beleive people are actually threatened at the idea of contraceptives.

Threatened?

If I had a 16 year old daughter I wouldn't care if they passed out free condoms in sex ed class and nobody asked for my permission.

If I had a 16 year old daughter I would be upset if she could just go to some random clinic and have a random guy stick a device in her uterus without mine or her mother's consent.

Apparently it seems impossible that there could be problems or complications from the device. Apparently you have never heard of doctors molesting their patients. Apparently you dont feel that any sort of family medical history has any importance. Apparently people never ever research the facility or provider before they get any sort of healthcare. Apparently you dont think it would be valuable for a parent to know their daughter has this device to be able to help monitor for possible side effects.

Obviously this program has had some success, not the ridiculous percentage that the predictable OP threw out, but success nonetheless. So I am not saying shut it down. Just saying I would like to be notified and many share this opinion. No reason to dismiss that as people being against progress or that they are threatened by something you consider meaningless.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I can't beleive people are actually threatened at the idea of contraceptives.

Threatened?If I had a 16 year old daughter I wouldn't care if they passed out free condoms in sex ed class and nobody asked for my permission.

If I had a 16 year old daughter I would be upset if she could just go to some random clinic and have a random guy stick a device in her uterus without mine or her mother's consent.

Apparently it seems impossible that there could be problems or complications from the device. Apparently you have never heard of doctors molesting their patients. Apparently you dont feel that any sort of family medical history has any importance. Apparently people never ever research the facility or provider before they get any sort of healthcare. Apparently you dont think it would be valuable for a parent to know their daughter has this device to be able to help monitor for possible side effects.

Obviously this program has had some success, not the ridiculous percentage that the predictable OP threw out, but success nonetheless. So I am not saying shut it down. Just saying I would like to be notified and many share this opinion. No reason to dismiss that as people being against progress or that they are threatened by something you consider meaningless.

There is at least some reason to suspect that such notification might make the program less effective at preventing teen pregnancy. So you need to weigh the competing interests. You can't just say "program sounds great, but they should notify parents too."

 

[matttyl]

1. Drummer, you're not helping. (You never do, BTW.)

2. matttyl, it's a terrible analogy. IUD's get removed all the time. There may have never been an IUD that has NOT been removed. They are temporary devices. Vasectomies, although reversible, are rarely reversed. They are NOT temporary. Therefore you can't apply the same rules.

I said the analogy wasn't perfect, but it does fit in a lot of ways. It's a minor surgical procedure, it only assists in the prevention of pregnancies but not STDs, and are in fact reversible. Ok, if it makes you feel better how about an IUD like removable device implanted under the skin in the scrot of a male (hope that's ok to say here). Would you be ok with a 13, 14, 15, or 16 year old boy requesting one of those devices be implanted into his body without parental knowledge?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Ok, if it makes you feel better how about an IUD like removable device implanted under the skin in the scrot of a male (hope that's ok to say here). Would you be ok with a 13, 14, 15, or 16 year old boy requesting one of those devices be implanted into his body without parental knowledge?

I would be OK with that, assuming that the risks are comparable to the risk of IUDs for women.

 

[RCon]

1. Drummer, you're not helping. (You never do, BTW.)

2. matttyl, it's a terrible analogy. IUD's get removed all the time. There may have never been an IUD that has NOT been removed. They are temporary devices. Vasectomies, although reversible, are rarely reversed. They are NOT temporary. Therefore you can't apply the same rules.

I said the analogy wasn't perfect, but it does fit in a lot of ways. It's a minor surgical procedure, it only assists in the prevention of pregnancies but not STDs, and are in fact reversible. Ok, if it makes you feel better how about an IUD like removable device implanted under the skin in the scrot of a male (hope that's ok to say here). Would you be ok with a 13, 14, 15, or 16 year old boy requesting one of those devices be implanted into his body without parental knowledge?

I'm going to guess that the lineups would be exactly the same. I don't think anyone is drawing the parental notification line based on gender.

 

[matttyl]

Dude, how many times do I have to say it? This conversation is about providing IUDs to women. IUDs do not prevent the risk of STDs either - specifically the reason I was using the male counterpart example of a vasectomy.

You're apparently not for allowing underage boys to consent to a vasectomy, so how could you be for this specific program performing the female equivalent to it?

Women can be provided with condoms as well, even before IUDs. Again, the focus should be more on sexual health, and the prevention of STDs.

But again I ask: does a vasectomy prevent STDs?

Your reading comprehension is leaving a lot to be desired here.

And if you believe that the focus should actually be on the prevention of STDs, then you should be against this initiative. Glad we got that settled.

Hold on a second: you'd have to show me a doctor who would suggest a vasectomy on a 13 year old boy in order to prevent pregnancy.

I'll wait for an answer.

I'm pretty sure every doctor everywhere would agree that performing 30,000 vasectomies of low income men would prevent pregnancies. Not sure what your thing is about 13 year old boys, maybe I shouldn't ask....

Yeah so tell me, are they performing 30,000 vasectomies in Africa?

I'll wait for a real answer.

Apparently...

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2803202.html

Five years later, in the 1999 ratings for 88 countries, only 65% of countries offered the pill to at least half their population, 54% the IUD, 42% female sterilization, 26% male sterilization and 73% the condom.

 

[matttyl]

Do you believe a boy of that age should be able to make that choice for himself without parental knowledge or consent?

Again, which dodctor would suggest a vasectomy for a 13 year old boy? How is this "minimally invasive" to a 13 year old? How does an IUD compare to a surgical procedure that has to have another surgical precedure to reverse it?

The IUD would have to be removed by a medical professional in another "surgical procedure" as well. I'm not sure you fully understand what an I UD is and what it does and doesn't do.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Do you believe a boy of that age should be able to make that choice for himself without parental knowledge or consent?

Again, which dodctor would suggest a vasectomy for a 13 year old boy? How is this "minimally invasive" to a 13 year old? How does an IUD compare to a surgical procedure that has to have another surgical precedure to reverse it?

The IUD would have to be removed by a medical professional in another "surgical procedure" as well. I'm not sure you fully understand what an I UD is and what it does and doesn't do.

I don't really see the usefulness of comparing and contrasting vasectomies with IUDs. I agree with Rich Conway -- nobody's position changes if IUDs were implanted in men instead of women.

 

[matttyl]

Would the parents, even if the daughter who did this wasn't physically harmed in any way, have the ability to sue the state for an obscene amount of money?

Anybody has the ability to sue anybody. But I don't see really see the state being liable for anything here, even assuming it waived its sovereign immunity. What would be the damages? And if a kid actually did suffer a complication, I would want the state to pay for that voluntarily. Those rare occurrences should just be costs built into the overall costs of the program.

The SC just said that companies can "pick and choose" what methods of contraceptives to offer, right? So if a girl when to her parents and told them about this program, and the parents said no for whatever reason, possibly because of similar beliefs to HL on the IUD - and then the underage girl went to the program and obtained an IUD anyway, I'd think the parents would have a pretty strong case.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Would the parents, even if the daughter who did this wasn't physically harmed in any way, have the ability to sue the state for an obscene amount of money?

Anybody has the ability to sue anybody. But I don't see really see the state being liable for anything here, even assuming it waived its sovereign immunity. What would be the damages? And if a kid actually did suffer a complication, I would want the state to pay for that voluntarily. Those rare occurrences should just be costs built into the overall costs of the program.

The SC just said that companies can "pick and choose" what methods of contraceptives to offer, right? So if a girl when to her parents and told them about this program, and the parents said no for whatever reason, possibly because of similar beliefs to HL on the IUD - and then the underage girl went to the program and obtained an IUD anyway, I'd think the parents would have a pretty strong case.

What exactly would the parent's damages be? How would they be quantified?

 

[matttyl]

Do you believe a boy of that age should be able to make that choice for himself without parental knowledge or consent?

Again, which dodctor would suggest a vasectomy for a 13 year old boy? How is this "minimally invasive" to a 13 year old? How does an IUD compare to a surgical procedure that has to have another surgical precedure to reverse it?

The IUD would have to be removed by a medical professional in another "surgical procedure" as well. I'm not sure you fully understand what an I UD is and what it does and doesn't do.

I don't really see the usefulness of comparing and contrasting vasectomies with IUDs. I agree with Rich Conway -- nobody's position changes if IUDs were implanted in men instead of women.

And that's fine, just asking about the male equivalent here (or the closest thing we have to it) since the overwhelming majority of members here are in fact males and that procedure is maybe something we can better relate to.

 

[matttyl]

Would the parents, even if the daughter who did this wasn't physically harmed in any way, have the ability to sue the state for an obscene amount of money?

Anybody has the ability to sue anybody. But I don't see really see the state being liable for anything here, even assuming it waived its sovereign immunity. What would be the damages? And if a kid actually did suffer a complication, I would want the state to pay for that voluntarily. Those rare occurrences should just be costs built into the overall costs of the program.

The SC just said that companies can "pick and choose" what methods of contraceptives to offer, right? So if a girl when to her parents and told them about this program, and the parents said no for whatever reason, possibly because of similar beliefs to HL on the IUD - and then the underage girl went to the program and obtained an IUD anyway, I'd think the parents would have a pretty strong case.

What exactly would the parent's damages be? How would they be quantified?

That's for the court to decide. How much money are "parental rights" worth? Some couple's underage daughter specifically disobeyed their possibly justifiable wishes with the aid of the state.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Sorry, but I don't see that hypothetical court case going anywhere.

 

[jon_mx]

Can we just make all poor kids infertile....a lot of societal problems would be solved.

 

[matttyl]

Thought about it a little bit more, and how do you know that the girl didn't go to her parents and they said no for whatever reason (religious belief of the IUD/Hobby Lobby, they feel she's too young, they don't like the guy she's seeing and getting an IUD for, they'd rather her use a contraceptive device that would also prevent STDs ,whatever the reason). After talking with her parents, and them having a possible very rational reason to say no, she goes to this program and gets and IUD implanted anyway.

Besides the fact that those reasons are rationalizations rather than rational, the girl should absolutely be allowed to confidentially seek out a health care provider and have the IUD provided and paid for confidentially by the insurance her parents are required to provide for her.

While in general it is a good idea to allow the government to trample on minors personal liberty by shifting most of the decision making power to the parents, there is simple no benefit anywhere to parental veto power in the realm of reproductive health. The underlying notion that these procedure (along with HPV vaccinations) provides some kind of implicit approval to sexual activity is not an argument that informed people should accept.

And again assuming the abortion studies on parental notification are ballpark and cutting right to the chase, unless you are a social conservative your daughter is already involving you in this decision making process.

Wow that first part really rubs me the wrong way, and terribly so.

To the second bolded part, I guess you don't see an Economics Professor at Duke University or someone in the School of Management at Yale to be "informed people"

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/teensex.pdf

Not saying I fully agree with their conclusion, but I would consider those two individuals along with the study they did on the topic to be "informed." I found that with just a quick google search, I'm sure there are more studies that show the same outcome as well.

 

[jon_mx]

Would the parents, even if the daughter who did this wasn't physically harmed in any way, have the ability to sue the state for an obscene amount of money?

Anybody has the ability to sue anybody. But I don't see really see the state being liable for anything here, even assuming it waived its sovereign immunity. What would be the damages? And if a kid actually did suffer a complication, I would want the state to pay for that voluntarily. Those rare occurrences should just be costs built into the overall costs of the program.

The SC just said that companies can "pick and choose" what methods of contraceptives to offer, right? So if a girl when to her parents and told them about this program, and the parents said no for whatever reason, possibly because of similar beliefs to HL on the IUD - and then the underage girl went to the program and obtained an IUD anyway, I'd think the parents would have a pretty strong case.

What exactly would the parent's damages be? How would they be quantified?

That's for the court to decide. How much money are "parental rights" worth? Some couple's underage daughter specifically disobeyed their possibly justifiable wishes with the aid of the state.

the clinics which provided surgeries to underage children are probably be the ones who would lose their ### if anything went wrong with a procedure and resulted in a permanent injury.

 

[matttyl]

Can we just make all poor kids infertile....a lot of societal problems would be solved.

Why just poor kids? My idea made having and IUD implant the standard for all females age 13-17/18. That would be the default just like any other immunization. The parents would have full knowledge of, and could also "opt out" if they so choose. Of course that's getting dangerously close to Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".

 

[matttyl]

the clinics which provided surgeries to underage children are probably be the ones who would lose their ### if anything went wrong with a procedure and resulted in a permanent injury.

Well of course, that's the slam dunk case. I'm talking about the underage girl who didn't have any injury, but who went against her parents wishes to participate in this (with the aid of the state).

 

[jon_mx]

the clinics which provided surgeries to underage children are probably be the ones who would lose their ### if anything went wrong with a procedure and resulted in a permanent injury.

Well of course, that's the slam dunk case. I'm talking about the underage girl who didn't have any injury, but who went against her parents wishes to participate in this (with the aid of the state).

States are usually tough to sue except in 'civil rights' or other specific situations which are codified.

 

[Dan Gladden's Mustache]

Would the parents, even if the daughter who did this wasn't physically harmed in any way, have the ability to sue the state for an obscene amount of money?

Anybody has the ability to sue anybody. But I don't see really see the state being liable for anything here, even assuming it waived its sovereign immunity. What would be the damages? And if a kid actually did suffer a complication, I would want the state to pay for that voluntarily. Those rare occurrences should just be costs built into the overall costs of the program.

The SC just said that companies can "pick and choose" what methods of contraceptives to offer, right? So if a girl when to her parents and told them about this program, and the parents said no for whatever reason, possibly because of similar beliefs to HL on the IUD - and then the underage girl went to the program and obtained an IUD anyway, I'd think the parents would have a pretty strong case.

What exactly would the parent's damages be? How would they be quantified?

That's for the court to decide. How much money are "parental rights" worth? Some couple's underage daughter specifically disobeyed their possibly justifiable wishes with the aid of the state.

the clinics which provided surgeries to underage children are probably be the ones who would lose their ### if anything went wrong with a procedure and resulted in a permanent injury.

Surgery?

 

[matttyl]

Would the parents, even if the daughter who did this wasn't physically harmed in any way, have the ability to sue the state for an obscene amount of money?

Anybody has the ability to sue anybody. But I don't see really see the state being liable for anything here, even assuming it waived its sovereign immunity. What would be the damages? And if a kid actually did suffer a complication, I would want the state to pay for that voluntarily. Those rare occurrences should just be costs built into the overall costs of the program.

The SC just said that companies can "pick and choose" what methods of contraceptives to offer, right? So if a girl when to her parents and told them about this program, and the parents said no for whatever reason, possibly because of similar beliefs to HL on the IUD - and then the underage girl went to the program and obtained an IUD anyway, I'd think the parents would have a pretty strong case.

What exactly would the parent's damages be? How would they be quantified?

That's for the court to decide. How much money are "parental rights" worth? Some couple's underage daughter specifically disobeyed their possibly justifiable wishes with the aid of the state.

the clinics which provided surgeries to underage children are probably be the ones who would lose their ### if anything went wrong with a procedure and resulted in a permanent injury.

Surgery?

Personally I consider the insertion of a foreign object into a person's body to be a "surgical procedure", but given the nature of this situation I'm perfectly fine with it simply being called a medical procedure. Either way, his point still stands. The Mirena IUD for instance has had over 47,000 reports of issues (many requiring surgery to remove them) and has a huge lawsuit on their hands.

I think the parents of an underage child who's a part of this 47,000 people, or part any potential future issues from other specific devices that do the same thing would have the ability to sue the #### out of the clinics/doctors doing these procedures without their knowledge or consent. Don't you?

 

[Dragons]

I think the parents of an underage child who's a part of this 47,000 people, or part any potential future issues from other specific devices that do the same thing would have the ability to sue the #### out of the clinics/doctors doing these procedures without their knowledge or consent. Don't you?

If the IUDs are implanted according to local laws (i.e. parents are not required to be notified) or unless there was negligence, how could they be successfully sued?

 

[Dragons]

Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of public policy for the conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, said she was skeptical of the state's claim that increased access to IUDs and other birth control caused the steep decline in teen birth rates.

"What we have seen over many years is that access to contraception does not equal fewer unintended pregnancies and fewer abortions," Earll said. "Availability of contraception leads to increased sexual activity, which leads to unintended pregnancies and abortions."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26085784/colorado-teen-birth-rates-drop-state-hands-out?ok

Surprised nobody is taking issue with this BS.

I guess fire extinguisers in homes increase the chance of house fires. Then there's brakes on cars...............

I took a shot at focus on the family earlier in the thread and it was deleted. Not going there again.

 

[Eminence]

I'm sure it's been mentioned already (haven't read the whole thread) but with pregnancy and abortion going down at the same rate, it appears that:

The same kids who were too cheap (or maybe couldn't afford?) to buy contraceptives were the same kids having the abortions. Seems like if this piece of data could be proven true, then this should become a nationwide program. My only fear is that the Mexicans will continue to reproduce at the same rate, however.

 

[matttyl]

I think the parents of an underage child who's a part of this 47,000 people, or part any potential future issues from other specific devices that do the same thing would have the ability to sue the #### out of the clinics/doctors doing these procedures without their knowledge or consent. Don't you?

If the IUDs are implanted according to local laws (i.e. parents are not required to be notified) or unless there was negligence, how could they be successfully sued?

There have been far crazier lawsuits than a set of parents who discovered that their underage daughter (who can't even consent to an ear piercing) without their knowledge and with the aid of the state had something implanted in her body which then caused her bodily harm. That same girl can not consent to any other medical procedure on her own, either.

Children, when in court being tried for a crime, are tried as children for a reason (apparent inability to reason as an adult would - same reason children can't vote). Parents could easily claim that their daughter couldn't reason the risk/rewards of the situation.

 

[Dragons]

I think the parents of an underage child who's a part of this 47,000 people, or part any potential future issues from other specific devices that do the same thing would have the ability to sue the #### out of the clinics/doctors doing these procedures without their knowledge or consent. Don't you?

If the IUDs are implanted according to local laws (i.e. parents are not required to be notified) or unless there was negligence, how could they be successfully sued?

There have been far crazier lawsuits than a set of parents who discovered that their underage daughter (who can't even consent to an ear piercing) without their knowledge and with the aid of the state had something implanted in her body which then caused her bodily harm. That same girl can not consent to any other medical procedure on her own, either.Children, when in court being tried for a crime, are tried as children for a reason (apparent inability to reason as an adult would - same reason children can't vote). Parents could easily claim that their daughter couldn't reason the risk/rewards of the situation.

Successful lawsuits?

 

[timschochet]

. My only fear is that the Mexicans will continue to reproduce at the same rate, however.

Stay classy.

 

[matttyl]

I think the parents of an underage child who's a part of this 47,000 people, or part any potential future issues from other specific devices that do the same thing would have the ability to sue the #### out of the clinics/doctors doing these procedures without their knowledge or consent. Don't you?

If the IUDs are implanted according to local laws (i.e. parents are not required to be notified) or unless there was negligence, how could they be successfully sued?

There have been far crazier lawsuits than a set of parents who discovered that their underage daughter (who can't even consent to an ear piercing) without their knowledge and with the aid of the state had something implanted in her body which then caused her bodily harm. That same girl can not consent to any other medical procedure on her own, either.Children, when in court being tried for a crime, are tried as children for a reason (apparent inability to reason as an adult would - same reason children can't vote). Parents could easily claim that their daughter couldn't reason the risk/rewards of the situation.

Successful lawsuits?

You're right, doctors/clinics never have malpractice claims. Ever.

You realize I posted the Mirena IUD class action lawsuit that will likely result in the tens if not hundreds of millions.

 

[Dragons]

I think the parents of an underage child who's a part of this 47,000 people, or part any potential future issues from other specific devices that do the same thing would have the ability to sue the #### out of the clinics/doctors doing these procedures without their knowledge or consent. Don't you?

If the IUDs are implanted according to local laws (i.e. parents are not required to be notified) or unless there was negligence, how could they be successfully sued?

There have been far crazier lawsuits than a set of parents who discovered that their underage daughter (who can't even consent to an ear piercing) without their knowledge and with the aid of the state had something implanted in her body which then caused her bodily harm. That same girl can not consent to any other medical procedure on her own, either.Children, when in court being tried for a crime, are tried as children for a reason (apparent inability to reason as an adult would - same reason children can't vote). Parents could easily claim that their daughter couldn't reason the risk/rewards of the situation.

Successful lawsuits?

You're right, doctors/clinics never have malpractice claims. Ever.You realize I posted the Mirena IUD class action lawsuit that will likely result in the tens if not hundreds of millions.

The mirena lawsuit appears to be a problem with the device. If a doctor who implanted it is at risk with this lawsuit (maybe improper implantation raises the risk?) then they would continue to be at risk I implanted in a minor without parental consent. But we're not talking about doctors assuming risk in their normal course of work, you have been talking about whether they would be at more risk by doing the procedure without parental consent.

Sure, lawsuits may be brought, there are lawsuits filed without merit all the time, but if the procedure is legal to perform without parental consent, I don't see a legitimate reason to think it increases their risk.

 

[matttyl]

Apparently a lawsuit is going on right now, and I've seen no mention of any harm coming to the girl (just a school in this instance overstepping their bounds by aiding the girl in obtaining BC). Moreover, the BC in question here are only pill, not an implanted device.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/04/parents-sue-district-allegedly-gave-daughter-birth-control/9960223/

 

[Dan Gladden's Mustache]

Would the parents, even if the daughter who did this wasn't physically harmed in any way, have the ability to sue the state for an obscene amount of money?

Anybody has the ability to sue anybody. But I don't see really see the state being liable for anything here, even assuming it waived its sovereign immunity. What would be the damages? And if a kid actually did suffer a complication, I would want the state to pay for that voluntarily. Those rare occurrences should just be costs built into the overall costs of the program.

The SC just said that companies can "pick and choose" what methods of contraceptives to offer, right? So if a girl when to her parents and told them about this program, and the parents said no for whatever reason, possibly because of similar beliefs to HL on the IUD - and then the underage girl went to the program and obtained an IUD anyway, I'd think the parents would have a pretty strong case.

What exactly would the parent's damages be? How would they be quantified?

That's for the court to decide. How much money are "parental rights" worth? Some couple's underage daughter specifically disobeyed their possibly justifiable wishes with the aid of the state.

the clinics which provided surgeries to underage children are probably be the ones who would lose their ### if anything went wrong with a procedure and resulted in a permanent injury.

Surgery?

Personally I consider the insertion of a foreign object into a person's body to be a "surgical procedure", but given the nature of this situation I'm perfectly fine with it simply being called a medical procedure. Either way, his point still stands. The Mirena IUD for instance has had over 47,000 reports of issues (many requiring surgery to remove them) and has a huge lawsuit on their hands. I think the parents of an underage child who's a part of this 47,000 people, or part any potential future issues from other specific devices that do the same thing would have the ability to sue the #### out of the clinics/doctors doing these procedures without their knowledge or consent. Don't you?

Not any more right than any other patient. Their knowledge and consent is irrelevant.

 

[Dan Gladden's Mustache]

Apparently a lawsuit is going on right now, and I've seen no mention of any harm coming to the girl (just a school in this instance overstepping their bounds by aiding the girl in obtaining BC). Moreover, the BC in question here are only pill, not an implanted device.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/04/parents-sue-district-allegedly-gave-daughter-birth-control/9960223/

Interesting.

Oh wait, not at all. That's in Ny and what the school district did there is illegal.

 

[matttyl]

Not any more right than any other patient. Their knowledge and consent is irrelevant.

The above linked lawsuit may change that (at least in New York).

Honestly all this may be totally irrelevant. Just because parental notice or consent isn't required in the OP, that doesn't mean that neither were obtained (either by the program or by the daughter) - and that's only for the population of girls under the age of consent (16 and under), and really should only matter to those girls who's parents are still in the picture with their upbringing (likely a lower percentage are in the likely lower economic population they are working with).

 

[matttyl]

Apparently a lawsuit is going on right now, and I've seen no mention of any harm coming to the girl (just a school in this instance overstepping their bounds by aiding the girl in obtaining BC). Moreover, the BC in question here are only pill, not an implanted device.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/04/parents-sue-district-allegedly-gave-daughter-birth-control/9960223/

Interesting.

Oh wait, not at all. That's in Ny and what the school district did there is illegal.

I understand it's a different state, and different laws likely apply. That said, the girl was 16 at the time and the school only helped her obtain pills. How is the situation in Colorado that much different, other than the fact that the BC they are helping the girls acquire is an implanted device? I don't even know that what the school did is "illegal", and if it is, why is it? And what is the Colorado program doing differently which makes it not illegal?

 

[RCon]

Apparently a lawsuit is going on right now, and I've seen no mention of any harm coming to the girl (just a school in this instance overstepping their bounds by aiding the girl in obtaining BC). Moreover, the BC in question here are only pill, not an implanted device.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/04/parents-sue-district-allegedly-gave-daughter-birth-control/9960223/

Interesting.

Oh wait, not at all. That's in Ny and what the school district did there is illegal.

I understand it's a different state, and different laws likely apply. That said, the girl was 16 at the time and the school only helped her obtain pills. How is the situation in Colorado that much different, other than the fact that the BC they are helping the girls acquire is an implanted device? I don't even know that what the school did is "illegal", and if it is, why is it? And what is the Colorado program doing differently which makes it not illegal?

I would assume that Colorado laws make the identical action legal, while NY laws make it illegal? It's kind of like arguing why marijuana is legal in Colorado, but not in New York.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Apparently a lawsuit is going on right now, and I've seen no mention of any harm coming to the girl (just a school in this instance overstepping their bounds by aiding the girl in obtaining BC). Moreover, the BC in question here are only pill, not an implanted device.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/04/parents-sue-district-allegedly-gave-daughter-birth-control/9960223/

Interesting.

Oh wait, not at all. That's in Ny and what the school district did there is illegal.

I understand it's a different state, and different laws likely apply. That said, the girl was 16 at the time and the school only helped her obtain pills. How is the situation in Colorado that much different, other than the fact that the BC they are helping the girls acquire is an implanted device? I don't even know that what the school did is "illegal", and if it is, why is it? And what is the Colorado program doing differently which makes it not illegal?

The article says that the school's conduct was illegal.

 

[matttyl]

Apparently a lawsuit is going on right now, and I've seen no mention of any harm coming to the girl (just a school in this instance overstepping their bounds by aiding the girl in obtaining BC). Moreover, the BC in question here are only pill, not an implanted device.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/04/parents-sue-district-allegedly-gave-daughter-birth-control/9960223/

Interesting.

Oh wait, not at all. That's in Ny and what the school district did there is illegal.

I understand it's a different state, and different laws likely apply. That said, the girl was 16 at the time and the school only helped her obtain pills. How is the situation in Colorado that much different, other than the fact that the BC they are helping the girls acquire is an implanted device? I don't even know that what the school did is "illegal", and if it is, why is it? And what is the Colorado program doing differently which makes it not illegal?

The article says that the school's conduct was illegal.

In that state, while the identical action in Colorado by a school there would have been legal? Honest question. It may very well be like pot in each state like Rich says. Anyway, happy Friday all.

 

[Dan Gladden's Mustache]

Apparently a lawsuit is going on right now, and I've seen no mention of any harm coming to the girl (just a school in this instance overstepping their bounds by aiding the girl in obtaining BC). Moreover, the BC in question here are only pill, not an implanted device.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/04/parents-sue-district-allegedly-gave-daughter-birth-control/9960223/

Interesting.Oh wait, not at all. That's in Ny and what the school district did there is illegal.

I understand it's a different state, and different laws likely apply. That said, the girl was 16 at the time and the school only helped her obtain pills. How is the situation in Colorado that much different, other than the fact that the BC they are helping the girls acquire is an implanted device? I don't even know that what the school did is "illegal", and if it is, why is it? And what is the Colorado program doing differently which makes it not illegal?

The article says that the school's conduct was illegal.

In that state, while the identical action in Colorado by a school there would have been legal? Honest question. It may very well be like pot in each state like Rich says. Anyway, happy Friday all.

You might want to look up "federalism" on Wikipedia.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Thought about it a little bit more, and how do you know that the girl didn't go to her parents and they said no for whatever reason (religious belief of the IUD/Hobby Lobby, they feel she's too young, they don't like the guy she's seeing and getting an IUD for, they'd rather her use a contraceptive device that would also prevent STDs ,whatever the reason). After talking with her parents, and them having a possible very rational reason to say no, she goes to this program and gets and IUD implanted anyway.

Besides the fact that those reasons are rationalizations rather than rational, the girl should absolutely be allowed to confidentially seek out a health care provider and have the IUD provided and paid for confidentially by the insurance her parents are required to provide for her.

While in general it is a good idea to allow the government to trample on minors personal liberty by shifting most of the decision making power to the parents, there is simple no benefit anywhere to parental veto power in the realm of reproductive health. The underlying notion that these procedure (along with HPV vaccinations) provides some kind of implicit approval to sexual activity is not an argument that informed people should accept.

And again assuming the abortion studies on parental notification are ballpark and cutting right to the chase, unless you are a social conservative your daughter is already involving you in this decision making process.

Wow that first part really rubs me the wrong way, and terribly so.

To the second bolded part, I guess you don't see an Economics Professor at Duke University or someone in the School of Management at Yale to be "informed people"

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/teensex.pdf

Not saying I fully agree with their conclusion, but I would consider those two individuals along with the study they did on the topic to be "informed." I found that with just a quick google search, I'm sure there are more studies that show the same outcome as well.

Your rebuttal is that once a teen has sex there is no putting the genie back in the bottle? And that since the frequency of sexual activity increases once that first time happens that the chances that they'll skip a day on the "advanced planning" contraception such as the pill or from using an "implemented during the act" contraception such as condom the overall chances of getting pregnant at some point as a teenager increases?

The theoretical economic argument that the increase risk of pregnancy from not having access to abortion was kind of already raised in the abortion post I made in 2006. The same theoretical idea would apply here with contraception. However, the real world reality is that the nations where contraception is readily available and used and parents don't pretend that teens don't have sex and teach values that teens actually have sex less and teen pregnancies are less likely (though there are some cultural differences also where starting a family early is frown on elsewhere, but important for many in the US). So instead of looking at that model why don't we just look at reality? It isn't like this information is new.

 

[drummer]

Can we just make all poor kids infertile....a lot of societal problems would be solved.

mattymengele agrees

 

[matttyl]

Can we just make all poor kids infertile....a lot of societal problems would be solved.

mattymengele agrees

Drummer, you do realize that making poor kids infertile is exactly what this program is doing, right? Have you read anything about the topic at hand or do you just post absolute nonsense and insults in every thread you visit?

 

[drummer]

Can we just make all poor kids infertile....a lot of societal problems would be solved.

mattymengele agrees

Drummer, you do realize that making poor kids infertile is exactly what this program is doing, right? Have you read anything about the topic at hand or do you just post absolute nonsense and insults in every thread you visit?

Are we talking contraception, or are we still talking about your equivalent of neutering animals?

 

[cstu]

Legitimate reasons not to allow minors to get medication and implanted devices without parental approval, but there should be no argument over free condoms.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Legitimate reasons not to allow minors to get medication and implanted devices without parental approval, but there should be no argument over free condoms.

Because your 15 year old can #### whoever he/she wants to and its not a damn thing you can do about it. 

Free Stuff! 

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Free Stuff! 

Saves tons of money.