"Good Morning America" co-host Diane Sawyer hosted a serious debate on Wednesday about whether Maine middle school students, children as young as 11, should have access to birth control pills. The ABC program engaged in a classic example of labeling bias with a graphic that identified talk show host Glenn Beck as a "conservative commentator." In contrast, Sawyer referred to the other guest, Logan Levkoff, not as a liberal, but simply a "sexual educator." This is despite the fact that the "educator" advocated not only for birth control for 11-year-olds, but wouldn't rule out giving it to elementary-aged children. Additionally, Levkoff has blogged about her distaste for President Bush and joy that the Democrats won Congress in 2006.
Despite a few tough questions to Levkoff, Sawyer clearly sympathized with her position. After explaining that a middle school in Portland is considering distributing the pill as well as the patch, she opened the debate by lecturing Beck: "You may not like it. You may want parents to go in and take care of their own children and make sure that they're not sexually active that young, but it's happening. It's happening." When Beck asserted that state law made sex under the age of 14 a crime, the GMA host retorted, "Well, but that's a legislative issue, what about these actual girls?"
Sawyer did ask Levkoff a pair of challenging questions, including wondering, "Would you draw the line anywhere? What if it were grade school?" The "sexual educator" wouldn't rule it out. She justified, "I don't necessarily draw the line because we're in a world where we get so many sexual messages and where is our goal? Our priority should be to protect our youth..." At this point, an onscreen graphic labeled Levkoff with a slightly different moniker, a "sexuality educator" Despite these extremely left-wing sentiments, ABC never identified her as a liberal. Glenn Beck, of course, was a "conservative commentator."
Levkoff, it should also be noted, blogs on the Trojan Elexa website. Her topics have included celebrating "Blog for Choice Day," bashing President Bush and enthusing how "psyched" she was about the Democrats taking control of Congress in 2006. According to ABC, however, that's not enough to describe someone as left of center.
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:31am on October 17, follows:
DIANE SAWYER: "But first, we turn to this debate about contraception and middle schools. Did you know that two percent of middle schools and junior high schools are already making condoms available? But now, one school, tonight, educators are going to consider whether they're going to add the pill and the patch to that as well. And we're talking about for children as young as 11 to 13 years old. By and large, these will be distributed in health clinics which are generally in neighborhoods which need help with health care. They are caught in the changing worlds of early puberty and sexual messages everywhere. And a middle school in Portland, Maine, today, some students say they are sexually active."
AMANDA ROWE (PORTLAND SCHOOL NURSES COORDINATOR): "We do certainly sit down and speak with them about why that's not a good choice but there are some who persist even though we don't like to think about that in being sexually active. They need to be protected."
SAWYER: "Just how much protection will be debated tonight when the Portland School Committee meets to decide if their middle school will offer a broader range, including prescriptions for birth control pills and the patch. Not for everyone, but the few who are sexually active."
ROWE: "It will provide a means of making sure that you don't get pregnant and ruin your school career and limit yourself in the future."
SAWYER: "The middle school health center already provides condoms as part of its reproductive health program. They say of the 135 children who visited the center last year, five reported being sexually active. By the way, while students need a parent's written permission to take advantage of the health services, no one has to tell parents if birth control is, in fact, being given."
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE PARENT #1: "I think that education about birth control at that age is appropriate because our culture is saturated with messages about sex."
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE PARENT #2: "I don't think I would want my child in middle school to be getting birth control pills, unless I had something to do with it."
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE PARENT #3: "I think providing birth control pills may encourage some kids to have sex if they think it's safe. But what's the alternative? Unsafe sex? Pregnant 12-year-olds?"
SAWYER: "So I think we've got a preview of the debate that is going on tonight. Joining us now is Glenn Beck. As you know, he is 'The Glenn Beck Show,' the same name, 'The Glenn Beck Show.' Also, sexual educator, Logan Levkoff. And we thank you for joining us."
LOGAN LEVKOFF: "Thank you."
SAWYER: "And we want to tackle this, but, Glenn, let me start with you. You may not like it. You may want parents to go in and take care of their own children and make sure that they're not sexually active that young, but it's happening. It's happening."
GLENN BECK: "Yeah. Well, that's why they're giving away condoms. We're taking a next jump here, which is the disturbing part for me. You're already getting condoms. How easy are we going to make it? Now we get birth control as well."
SAWYER: "Yes, but if it protects these young girl, if it's more protection for these young girls--"
BECK: "Let me ask you this. Why does the state of Maine have a law on the books now saying it's illegal to have sex under 14? They're sending mixed messages. In the state of Maine, you cannot have sex under 14--"
SAWYER: "Well, but that's a legislative issue, what about these actual girls?"
BECK: "I understand that. They're saying because they are not emotional capable of making the decision of having sex. You're talking about an 11-year-old and you're cutting the family out of the process."
SAWYER: "All right. Logan, 11-year-old, and it can be done privately as we heard."
LEVKOFF: "Well, it could be and parents should be the sex educators of their children. They can be the best ones. The problem is that not every parent feels empowered to do this. Not every parent feels he or she has the skills. And if you've already expressed your issues and values about sexuality to your kids, than if contraception is being offered in these school-based health programs, than your kids understand what your values are. And if they're not, and if they're not, if your parents aren't talking to the kids, than you better be thanking your lucky stars that someone is taking care of their sexual health."
BECK (ABC GRAPHIC: CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR): "I wish I'd have been-- please, don't take away the power from the parent. I understand if you want to-- if the school wants to talk about sex, great, the school can talk about sex. But the parents -- if these kids go in for this help, the school is not allowed to talk to the parents. We're talking about a--"
LEVKOFF: "This is a parental consent law and--"
BECK: "It is -- no, no, no, for the health care. They can get the condoms, but--"
SAWYER: "So, let me -- Let me see if we agree on one thing here."
BECK: "Yeah."
SAWYER: "If the parents were notified that, indeed, the pill, the patch, was going to be administered, you'd be okay then? "
BECK: "No, here's the -- I don't demonize the kids. 'Kay? What I do is, if the parents said, go ahead, give them the pill. They're an 11-year-old! Would you say it would be okay as a parent if I said, you know, my kid's going to get drunk--"
LEVKOFF: "Here's--"
BECK: "Hang on. My kid's going to get drunk tonight, please dispense some aspirin and some Tums tomorrow morning. You would take that child out of the house because it's not right to allow the kid to get drunk."
LEVKOFF: "Sexuality is part of who we are and our sexual health is part of our overall health so it's not a surprise if we're dealing with head to toe health issues, sexual health is one of them and we can't forget that."
BECK: "We're talking about parents--"
LEVKOFF: "We are talking about parents."
BECK: " --who are making the decision that it would okay for their kid to have sex. As an alcoholic, I'm a recovering alcoholic, I know a little thing about enabling people. You're enabling people."
LEVKOFF: "Glenn, there has never been any research to suggest that by providing contraception, you're encouraging people to go out and--"
BECK: "Not talking about contraception, I'm okay, go ahead with the condoms. I'm talking about not writing a prescription for the pill."
LEVKOFF: "I know, but don't forget, don't forget the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists just said that they want teen girls to see a gynecologist in the early teens--"
BECK: "They can see a gynecologist with mom and dad."
SAWYER: "I'm curious about your differentiation between condom and the pill."
BECK: "Oh, I'm not -- look, because I'm a -- I'm a realist on-- I understand that there are bad parents out there. I understand that there are disease out there. But we're talking, now, about taking the pill. Now we're saying, hey, you go ahead -- I mean, how easy are we going to make it?"
LEVKOFF: "You're not making it easy."
BECK: "Why don't we make it easy? The library is outdated, why don't we have a copulation room for the kids?"
SAWYER: "Oh, come on."
BECK: "No, I mean, how easy are we going to make it?"
LEVKOFF: "But Glenn, they need a physical exam, still, which most people don't get before they just pick up their condoms and become sexually active. You're talking to counselors. There is background information here. It's not just, here, take them and go."
SAWYER: "Would you draw the line anywhere? What if it were grade school? Debating this-- Because we know puberty is younger in this country."
LEVKOFF: "Here's the issue-- It's absolutely earlier."
SAWYER: "Where do you draw the line?"
LEVKOFF: (ABC GRAPHIC: SEXUALITY EDUCATOR): "I think I-- I don't necessarily draw the line because we're in a world where we get so many sexual messages and where is our goal? Our priority should be to protect our youth and make sure if they're going to make decisions that they are as sexually active as possible and we give parents the tools to teach at home so we don't have to defer to a lot of other sources."
SAWYER: "All right. Well, this is the debate going on tonight, as I say--"
BECK: "Raise the bar, don't lower it. Raise the bar."
LEVKOFF: "Take care of our youth."
SAWYER: "All right."
BECK: "By raising the bar."
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Ummm ...
October 17, 2007 - 12:57 ET by drillanwrWould this story go hand in hand with this one ...?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/richard-newcomb/2007/10/17/ohio-rep-shows-students-porn-media-omits-party
Just, umm, asking ...
New Dem Slogan:
October 17, 2007 - 13:00 ET by mattmBirth Control, it's for the children...
It's all a part..
October 17, 2007 - 13:03 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. of the liberal campaign to sexualize the nation's children at younger and younger ages.
between grade school birth
October 17, 2007 - 13:12 ET by TruthMongerbetween grade school birth control programs and abortion we should be happy to have the Democrats protect our children, yes
Grade-school smoking happens anyway too, right?
...so let's pass out Marlboro LIGHTS in grade school - at least they're not as harmful as regular Marlboros - or maybe pot would be even better - it's not as bad as cigarettes I'm told...
I mean "what is our goal here? We need to protect the children..."
Grade school meth happens anyway, too
...so can we pass out cocaine instead? It is less harmful then meth...
I mean "what is our goal here? We need to protect the children..."
Grade-school bullying happens anyway, too
...so can we pass out boxing gloves so kids aren't hurt as bad?
I mean "what is our goal here? We need to protect the children..."
this seems to fix everything baby
A service of the new NB respect police
Hey Chris, Helmets too
October 17, 2007 - 15:00 ET by exLibOne of the better ones i heard was to give kids Crash Helmets and possibly stock cars with roll bars...
They're going to drink and drive anyway......
The dems figure that if
October 17, 2007 - 13:09 ET by bassndudeThe dems figure that if they can get them started early enough, they will have a world of sluts and "midnight cowboys" around to keep the economy up and running. Not only that, but they are going to need interns in the future.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Murder, slow and steady....
October 17, 2007 - 15:04 ET by exLibActually, what Margret Sanger's goal was to kill off the "weaker" among us, because it was better for society.
So she founded Planned Parenthood. A place where mostly low income, less educated, young girls can come and get expert advice on aborting their babies.
And of course any chance to get the parents out of the equation, all the better. Since 11 year olds are not mature enough to make rational decions.
Clear evidence shows that PP is not advising adoptions, (around 5%). And than income from actual patients is down, while Federal dollars is going up, up, up. It's over 1/3 of their total revenue is Tax Dollars.
TOTAL IDIOCY! Sorry for
October 17, 2007 - 13:16 ET by taznarTOTAL IDIOCY!
Sorry for shouting, but do these idiots know there isn't sufficient data to know how safe it is to be giving hormones to adolescent (much less prepubescent) girls? What are the long term ramifications regarding development and health?
I'll have to double check, but I don't know if the FDA has even approved those drugs for children.
And that's not even looking at the ethical/moral implications.
On Tuesday night ABC ran a
October 17, 2007 - 14:11 ET by alamojbOn Tuesday night ABC ran a story about a big lawsuit reward to women who suposedly got breast cancer from hormone replacement. They were clearly sypathetic to the massive reward.
Birth Control for 11 yr olds
October 17, 2007 - 17:36 ET by merlin61Most schools won't even allow aspirin in their
schools, but now we're going to give kids a pill
that no one knows the consequences of on
children this young, and who probably don't
even know how to take them properly. Duh!!
Then, don't tell the parents what they are giving
the kids. Unforgivable and totally idiotic.
Why do Dianne Sawyer and the
October 17, 2007 - 13:26 ET by TEWhy do Dianne Sawyer and the rest of the pagan left, atheist left, feminist left and homosexual left want to get in the bedrooms of other parents' children and indoctrinate other parents' children with the pagan left's religious cult and its "values"?
excellent question follow
October 17, 2007 - 13:38 ET by TruthMongerexcellent question
follow the money!
A service of the new NB respect police
"Our priority should be to protect our youth..."
October 17, 2007 - 13:33 ET by vrwc13Parents, want to really protect your youth?
Get them out of the publik (guvnemint) skols.
It's no wonder homeschooling now has over 2.5 MILLION kids and is still growing.
v
Need more? Read this!
Good Cal Vrwc
October 17, 2007 - 15:07 ET by exLibIt's coming here too no doubt, unless it's here already.
This to me is another reason we don't want Rudy. Rudy may be the best chance to beat Hillary, but Rudy as Hillary socially could be a disaster. Once he gets in, he will feel like he owes nothing to social conservatives.
Apart from the obvious moral questions
October 17, 2007 - 13:36 ET by landsharkis no one on the left considering the possibility of adverse physical effects in giving massive doses of synthetic hormones to still-growing-not-quite-adolescents?
Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against synthetic hormones as a general rule, but these are the same folks who get pretty upset over the consumption of cow's milk and red meat.
They aren't massive doses of hormones
October 17, 2007 - 15:53 ET by TexndocBirth control pills have a very high safety profile for any young female who has started her cycles. There's less hormones in the pills than she would be exposed to with a pregnancy. And State Law in Texas is if you are pregnant, no matter if you are 11 or 12, a physician is treating you now as an ADULT and there is no parental notification required. I TRY to get sexually active GIRLS on the pill, and it's amazing the number who "don't want to gain weight" and two months later show up pregnant (as you can figure a sexually active pre-teen is so much smarter than you or me when it comes to these things...and yes I am active in the "Wait!" adolescent education program)
Reality Meets Desire
October 17, 2007 - 16:01 ET by stratmanYou have given an example of doing your job as a physician despite certain personal preferences versus a journalist not doing their job when they insert advocacy and bias into their reporting.
A physican thinks "patient first" while a journalist thinks "self first".
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
And State Law in Texas is
October 17, 2007 - 16:06 ET by drillanwrAnd State Law in Texas is if you are pregnant, no matter if you are 11 or 12, a physician is treating you now as an ADULT and there is no parental notification required.
Yeah ... well, I would say to that, When you come around looking for someone to pay ANY medical bills for this "adult", try and collect from that "adult" ... You ain't getting a penny from me.
"you come around looking for
October 17, 2007 - 16:19 ET by Texndoc"you come around looking for someone to pay ANYmedical bills for this "adult", try and collect from that "adult" ... You ain't getting a penny from me."
Given that 99.99% of pregnant pre-teens qualify for medicaid, YOU are exactly who we get our pennies from. (assuming you live in Texas, but I doubt it's not the same everywhere). Listen I've only been doing this 25 years......
Well, then I guess the
October 17, 2007 - 16:45 ET by drillanwrWell, then I guess the state of Texas wouldn't have any problems with these 11 and 12 yr. old "adults" being made to get jobs and fork over some of those cash cow tax dollars ...
Just because you can make a baby doesn't mean you're an adult.
If you are going to consider my 11 or 12 yr. old an adult simply because you or the school has put her on a birth control pill (because you don't want the mean evil parents knowing about it) then you won't mind me treating her like one too ... I can take extended trips and leave the 11 / 12 yr. old home to fend for herself. I don't have to cook or clean for her. Don't have to care where she is in the middle of the night ... And if she doesn't fork over rent, I can boot her out.
"Just because you can make a
October 17, 2007 - 18:06 ET by Texndoc"Just because you can make a baby doesn't mean you're an adult."
True, but the law states if you HAVE made a baby (are 13 and are pregnant), a physician does treat you as an adult. I've seen 16 year olds having their 2nd or 3rd child. And 4 or 5 children at age 20. And state law says for a patient under the age of 21 you may not perform a sterilization, no matter how loud they - or their mothers! - plead for it to be performed, or how many children they have. And yes, there are those who are furious and threaten "I'll just show up pregnant again!" like I (or you) are to blame. It doesn't shock me anymore. Thank the Lord for the IUD because that is often the best I can do for that patient, and the state (that is, me and you) does pay for that.
Are you or your colleagues
October 17, 2007 - 20:32 ET by stratmanAre you or your colleagues inserting IUD's in 12 year olds? What age do you consider medically appropriate?
I've not seen or heard of an IUD in an 11 or 12 yo. The potential complications of an IUD read like a playbook for a sexually active Tween and Teen.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Today's IUDs are not the
October 17, 2007 - 22:22 ET by TexndocToday's IUDs are not the IUDs of yesterday. The most common used today is called the Mirena IUD and it is progesterone coated, stops the menstrual cycle after 6 or so months, and prevents pregnancy for 5 years. Pelvic infections are less common because of the way it works. It blocks fertilization by thickening the cervical mucous. I would never recommend it to any young girl under 21 as the best form of contraception UNLESS she has already delivered a baby, regardless of age, because it is safe and works. I know for a fact that there are some mothers bringing their daughters in whenever they suspect sexual activity and are requesting it and doctors and nurses are inserting it in girls who haven't been pregnant but I would discourage that as a first option. As I've pointed out, a 12 or 13 year old who is not or has not been pregnant could not receive an IUD without parental consent. Someone that age who has been pregnant, by my state law, is an "adult".
Interestingly enough, if someone under the age of 16 presents for contraception, a parent must give authority. If they present for evaluation or treatment for a sexually transmitted disease, they do not. How's that for another can of worms here? Yes, someone's daughter can have and be treated for gonorrhea and we're required to notify the public health department but not her parents without her consent. If abuse is suspected the physician by law must also notify child protective services.
Yes there have been some
October 18, 2007 - 00:52 ET by stratmanYes there have been some changes with IUD's in the past 15-20 years.
I have had minimal experience with the Paragard T380A and zero practical experience with the Mirena because of timing and career trajectory.
I don't recall any younger teens with the Paragard, and the perscribing insert states FDA approval 16yr and older. Couldn't find an age determinent on the Mirena website.
For the proper patient, IUD's can be just what the doctor ordered, pun intended. I just don't have a comfort zone with teens using one due to all the health issues that could develop. It would have to be one very adult teenager, reliable and responsible enough to identify problems that may occur and to seek help in an appropriate time frame. Of course the irony of a teenager having unprotected sex which necessitates an IUD being regarded as 'responsible' begs comparison as an oxymoron.
On the issue of reproductive health care for minors in Ohio:
On the issue of who is a Mature Minor:
On the issue of who is considered an Emancipated Minor:
A rule of thumb acquaintances ascribe to is if the minor travels to the physician on their own and then asks for reproductive health care, then the minor may receive said care without involving the parent at the request of the child. It's a no brainer if they already have a child, though I'm not sure how that would relate to a developmentally delayed teenage mother living at home with her parents who still have legal charge of the daughter.
A few differenct scenarios to ponder, way too many attorneys to feed.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Admittedly, I'm not an expert
October 17, 2007 - 16:50 ET by landsharkMy point was that, a lot of the same people who get upset when it comes to the hormones in milk and meat, would be fine with giving (other parents') kids hormones through the pill and patch.
You've raised an interesting point about the law; if kids are pregnant, they are treated as adults. What this policy does though is treat kids as adults so that they don't become pregnant. There's a huge ethical distinction there.
Call me silly but I don't think schools should even consider this kind of policy until they're at least capable of teaching kids how to read and write.
If the education system can master that, then we'll talk. </sarcasm>
How's this ... This
October 17, 2007 - 13:50 ET by drillanwrHow's this ...
This "school program" is to be kept from the knowledge of the parents ...
1) the pill is not completely safe/harmless ... There are side effects to it ... So, a parent takes their school-birth-controlled-duaghter to the doctor/hospital and, having no knowledge that the child is on the pill, cannot tell the doctor what might be causing the problem in their daughter
2) on that same note, a school-birth-controlled-daughter gets an infection that requires an antibiotic (strep throat, let's say) ... mom/dad take said daughter to the doctor and he/she puts the girl on the 7-10 day antibiotic (remember, neither the parent or the doc is aware the child is on the pill, let alone, sexually active ...) ... historically, antibiotics greatly decrease the effectiveness of the birth control pill ... since the ADULTS directly involved and responsible for this child's life were NOT permitted to be aware their child was on the birth control pill, they cannot explain to her the deficit in protection she now faces because the antibiotic she is taking for her strep throat is countering it ... so, she gets pregnant.
3) exactly WHAT is the plan to distribute this DRUG to the little girls during summer break?
Another Slippery Slope To Rome
October 17, 2007 - 16:05 ET by stratmanExcellent points, drillanwr.
1) Pesky blood clots, heart attacks, gall stones and liver damage, let alone potential for increased prevalence of certain carcinomas, are nothing to the Liberal do-gooders... until problems occur. At that time, it will be the fault of government beauracracies traced back to George Bush, greedy pharmaceutical companies and inept physicians.
2) Current thinking in primary care concerning reproductive/STD care of the minor population is that if the child can get to the doctor's office on their own and/or ask for reproductive/STD care, then that child will be treated as an adult such that the medical record in this area will not be communicated to the parent without permission from the minor except in emergent/dangerous situations. The parent, then, is in the dark about the health and well being of their child whom they feed/clothe/shelter/pay for and direct all other healthcare matters.
A scenario sure to occur hundreds of times with this cohort of child patients is that the child is injured or sick, see's a different physician than the one that prescribes/is knowledgable about the reproductive issues, and the child does not inform the new physician of all medications (OBCP in this case) or history of STD's, sexual partners, practices, etc for fear of angering/dissappointing the parent. Appropriate care may be delayed such that further harm is done to the child by this reporting ommission, potentially long term sequelae or even death, invariably costing more and creating more stress on all participants involved.
What will happen when the child does not have periods, too many or unusual periods because of the birth control and the parent notices? How will the physician handle that discussion with the parent given that confidentiality is now established between physician and the child reproductive care patient? "Mrs. Jones, your daughter won't be having periods but it's normal"??? Uh huh.
As far as antibiotics and birth control medicines, you make a good point, though the risk is smaller than previously thought overall. See here near the bottom of the page for a quick and easy overview of this topic. Regardless, most physicans will warn patients starting antibiotics to use an alternate form of birth control including abstinence while on the antibiotic and for a short time after the medicine is finished. A ounce of prevention is surely cheaper than a pound of cure.... and malpractice litigation.
3) Precisely! Even school holidays present issues for this population in need of refills, whom I imagine will far less responsible in taking their perscriptions consistently than the adult population currently does. Depo-Provera or implants instead of pills might be the superior vehicle of choice for this child population.
I would add one more:
4) Birth control pills/shots/implants do NOT protect one from STD's including HIV and Hepatitis.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
We should just use the
October 17, 2007 - 14:40 ET by MidAmericaWe should just use the leftists main weapon against them. If the school provides contraception to a minor without the parents involvement and she gets pregnant anyway then sue the school for any costs of the pregnancy and for financial support of that child till it's through college.
you're on the right track
October 17, 2007 - 15:03 ET by landsharkbut, remember that public schools generate no income. If you sue them, you're effectively giving yourself a tax hike.
You want the liability to rest with individuals. when you make school board members, principals, nurses personally liable if they provide kids with the pill or patch - they may think twice about implementing this type of idiotic policy.
Your correct that school
October 17, 2007 - 15:42 ET by MidAmericaYour correct that school money is just tax (our) money but this is the tactic used all the time by groups/individuals to force change on a school system. The ACLU only has to threaten a lawsuit to get it's way.
Actually I don't understand, considering the level of mal-practice insurance a doctor must carry, why a school would want to put themselves in such jeopardy by assuming the role of physician/guardian.
Whose kids? Our kids!
October 17, 2007 - 14:43 ET by greenfairie1. It's disturbing Ms. Levkoff isn't the least bit bothered about children as young as grade school age being sexually active. IT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING, PERIOD! Tweens ought to be having birthday parties at Libby Lu, not popping birth control pills. Is it okay with Levkoff if 10-year-olds have sex with 17-year-old boyfriends? How about if the boyfriends are 27? 56?? I sniff a barely-hidden pro-pederdasty/pedophilia agenda here. Convince the parents their little girls are going to be sexually active anyway, so as long as they're "safe," don't mind the creepy man down the street inviting them over for slumber parties.
2. The governnment has no business getting in between parents and their children. It's been happening more and more through the public schools, and I guarantee you they'll find a way to get through to the private schools and even homeschoolers. We need to fight back and soon.
If you think the public
October 17, 2007 - 14:50 ET by NL207If you think the public schools have been getting in between parents and their children, you should look closely at what the family court system has been doing. There have been decisionis in those courts that have placed the interests and authority of the state above those of the parents in many jurisdictions. The net effect has been to establish the pre-eminent right of the state to dictate to parents how children should be raised, the ultimate nanny state: a fascist tyranny.
In the State of NH
October 17, 2007 - 16:39 ET by Bess2728(an aside - I didn't mean to reply to one particular post - I couldn't get to get post to the comment list in general)
Anyway - in the State of NH - girls as young as 14 can now obtain abortions WITHOUT parental consent. (however, according to NH law - anyone 15 and under cannot legally consent to sex ). And once a child reaches age 12 - the parents do not have a right to see their medical records unless the child consents (at least that applies to viewing medical records online).
This slow constant usurption of parental rights by the state has gotten me into a tizzy. The only way I can think to keep my children safe from the ever growing arms of government - is to homeschool them. Even then....
I enjoy listening to Glenn Beck from time to time, but honestly, I don't see why he even bothers with GMA -- it's not that they'll ever give him a fair shake or even listen....
Thanks for allowing me to rant a bit.
So lemme get this
October 17, 2007 - 16:58 ET by KhyrisSo lemme get this straight... sex under the age of 14 is illegal... but we should still be concerned about those engaging in it to the point of enabling them with government funded supplies?
Imagine that robbery is illegal, but the government is willing to use taxpayer's funds to supply everyone with tazers and bullet-proof-vests so that "just in case" they commit robbery anyway everyone will be safe!
No, it's not the same scenario, but the logic is the same.
It's sad someone who works with kids has no clue what the words "enabling" and "deterrent" mean.
Just wait, someday the gov
October 17, 2007 - 16:59 ET by Clear thinkerJust wait, someday the gov will be handing out Viagra to teens. Next will be the enlargement pills.
God how I hate those commercials!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
they did it
October 18, 2007 - 06:45 ET by be_objectivethey did it, look HERE.
"PORTLAND (NEWS CENTER) -- In a 7-to-2 vote, the Portland School Committee has approved a proposal to offer a full array of birth control options-- including birth control pills-- to students at King Middle School."
"In any compromise between good and evil, only evil can profit." Ayn Rand
This is one of many reasons
October 18, 2007 - 07:43 ET by JseitlerThis is one of many reasons that I'm glad I was home-schooled, and plan on doing the same with my children. I'm sick to death of the government (let alone the media) telling me I'm not capable of raising my children. When will the schools learn that their job is to teach 11 year-olds what time Johnny and Jimmy pass each other on the highway; not that being gay is "normal" and that if you got a little frisky last night, "just go see the nurse...she'll make it all better." And then to have the audacity to deny parental notification? Biblical prophesy is being fulfilled every day, my friends.
I know I sound like your average middle-aged "tetchy republican male who can't stand change", but I'm only 23. How's that for Generation Next, media mofo's? YOU CAN'T HAVE ME, OR MY KIDS!
...That felt good. Some people start their day off with Folgers; I start mine with a rebuke of liberals. The best part of waking up...
Somebody tell me again why
October 18, 2007 - 11:13 ET by JoeBobSomebody tell me again why my tax dollars have to go to pay for your promiscuous children. I raised MINE right. You didn't, then you pay for the birth control.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
The Unacknowledged Holocaust
October 19, 2007 - 01:37 ET by StokeyBobBack in the 60’s the Federal Government came into the public schools and brainwashed us as little children with the message that the children we were about to have were unwanted because the population was rising so fast. They launched a program called, “Zero Population Growth”. They pushed Family Planning and birth control pills. Now they call the same programs, "Safe Sex" but the results are the same. I think you and I both know that you only have to trick people for their few child bearing years and there is no going back.
Many of us never had a say in the future of our unborn.
I am the result of two living cells. One from each of my parents. They are the result of two living cells, one from each of their parents. I wasn't just born. I am a continuation of life. I am a living thing that reaches back into time perhaps 400 million years and the result of billions of joining of pairs of cells. It is possible that if you were to follow my cells back to my parent’s cells and beyond that my family tree touches every living thing here on earth. That is if we limit ourselves to believing life was created here on earth. If it rained down from the immensity of the universe it could reach back into that immensity of time and space, and who knows what relationships and who knows what species.
My family line succeeded, at least until I came up against the Federal Government and their plan to control the population.
I have seen the Federal Government do little else to control the population.
The open border, United States laws only apply to some, is a serious slap in the face. No, not a slap in the face, it reaches well beyond that. Maybe back to the beginning of time and stretch to the bounds of the universe.
}}---> It was our choice Stokey
October 19, 2007 - 01:46 ET by Cool ArrowWe have a flood of illegals specifically because we chose ZPG.
All we did was replace our own offspring with somebody else's.
The chickens come home as we age and demand the invaders support us in our old age.
It ain't gonna be pretty. Expect statues erected honoring Jack Kervorkian.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Not Very Wise At All
October 19, 2007 - 05:48 ET by BondPlainBondThe school will decide if the child will have access to contraceptives. It is up to the parents to decide whether they sign the form that authorizes their child to have medical treatment at the school; this also includes an aspirin, a tampon, a band-aid, neosporin, ice packs, a resting room for headaches. if the parent doesn't sign the form, their child will NOT be given any of the above unless removed from school and taken to the family's regular health care provider. No form - nothing from the school. Not even in an emergency. The school's got a lock on their ability to hand out birth control pills now, doesn't it? Sneaky how they worked it into the signing of the form, wasn't it?
Does the school notify the parents when they discover an underage child is engaing in sex?
Do they ask the age of the child's sexual partner?
Is this another instance of the secular progressives sweeping rape under the carpet in favor of placing underage children on birth control?
While watching the replay of Brit Hume on Special Report, someone (a male) from the school in Maine actually said,
Don't TRY. DO IT! Get the parents involved. Mandate it just like Parents' Night. No opting out.
Have parents and students assemble in the auditorium and then have "the talk" - given by a qualified health professional, preferably a doctor, NOT a nurse. Students are sitting beside their parent in case a whispered question needs to be asked, parents hear what their children are being told, children know their parents heard the same thing they did.
GET THE PARENTS INVOLVED AT ALL COSTS
Instead of the shabby, patched up, secular progressive answer to everything - if it feels good, do it - and your school will provide you the means, free of charge and without your parents' knowledge, to ingest dangerous hormones that could give you cancer, liver disease, a heart attack, lung disfunction, and a myriad of other health problems so sex can be had whenever you choose - even in the classroom (as we've seen in three or four instances recently) - the parents should be brought in when there is the slightest suspicion an underage child is engaging in sexual relations. This is NOT a privacy issue - it is a parent/child issue, and the school should be helping the parents to be better parents - not relieving them of parental duties.
Does this school actually believe an eleven-year-old will remember to take a birth control pill everyday? Who is going to keep track of that? And, when the eleven-year-old forgets to take her school-supplied birth control pills and becomes pregnant, then what? A school-sponsored abortion, also without the parent being informed?
When prescribing birth control, a complete physical is suggested, even by the pharmaceutical companies. The school will be providing a nurse-run physical of the stethoscope and tongue depressor variety. No blood work will be performed.
Can an eleven-year-old give the nurse (or the physician) an accurate and complete medical history? Does an eleven-year-old know if Mom or Dad or siblings have diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, or any other illness that would affect their physiology when ingesting hormones?
The school, in their hasty desire to have underage children freely engaging in sexual relations (or unwitting rapes), has not thought about the risks to the children to whom they will be providing the means to screw them up emotionally for the rest of their lives.
Why do schools want to separate children from their parents on issues such as these?
Why do parents allow their children to be "taken" from them on issues such as these?
This is a sad, sad, and very troublesome event.