NYC..Morning After Pill...Schools

Discussion is locked
Reply to: NYC..Morning After Pill...Schools
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: NYC..Morning After Pill...Schools
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
RE:why have a program that requires parents to OPT OUT

why have a program that requires parents to OPT OUT instead of OPT IN?

Over the past year, she said, about one to two percent of parents have indeed opted out. She then noted that about 40% of young people in New York City public schools are sexually active, and not all of those students are able or willing to have conversations about sex or reproductive health with their parents

2% OPTED OUT....98% would have OPTED IN.

OR 98% didn't give a rat's *** about their kid anyway so it doesn't matter if the kid has a Morning After Pill. And the kid wouldn't have ended up taking care of the baby anyway IF there was a baby.

The 98% of the parents that would have OPTED IN may have talked to their kids and they trust their kids to make the right choices, and they don't feel THEY have to make decisions for their children....ALL part of growing up.

Times have changed since I was a kid.

How bout you?

- Collapse -
That's an assumption not based on fact

Let's change it and make it imperative they OPT IN and see how those figures change. You'd probably see less than 10% then "opt in" for that program. This is not a proper function for a school system to be involved in at all.

- Collapse -
RE:This is not a proper function for a school system
This is not a proper function for a school system to be involved in at all.

IF the child is having sex...which they would be, if they feel the need for a pill(another assumption)....WHERE are the parents?

Not there...If they were, the kid wouldn't be having sex? Right?

It IS the parent's responsibility, right?

Parents not taking care of the child, probably don't go to church...church not taking care of the child( IF they are even going to church) why does the child feel the need to have a pill?

Parents not taking care of the child, church not taking care of the child...who's left to take care of the child?...the school.

School, a place they go everyday...not like booking an appointment to a government agency, perhaps 3 weeks later.

No sense taking the morning after pill 3 weeks later, 3 days is pushing the limit.
- Collapse -
Well...they should be home more days than at school

I suppose government could consider taking all children at birth and raising them entirely. Maybe parents could be allowed visitation rights at certain times of their own desire. Once their education was complete, the kids could choose to go live with their parents or leave to find work. This relieves parents of any of the mundane duties and allows them to be with their kids only when they wish.

Oh wait! Isn't that fairly close to what we already have in many cases?

- Collapse -
What's your response to

the "FACT" that only 2% OPTED OUT?

- Collapse -
No. Your suggestion that parents don't care

I think that, in too many cases, you're sadly correct. We then find ourselves doing that which seems to be expedient rather than that which is ideal. Got a problem? Make a pill to fix it. No fuss...no guilt...no problem for us. Someone else maybe but not for us.

- Collapse -
My answer is

that about 90% didn't read something the school sent home with the kids, or they never received it from the kid because they lost it. Some of those who got it probably didn't even understand it other than a quick look over thinking it said something about the school giving their child medicine if they were sick at school. Do you know how much crap parents have to wade through at the first of each school year?! Plus the standard action is you have to SIGN UP, or as you call it "OPT IN" for anything offered. How many didn't even realize they had to UNSIGN UP for something they'd NEVER SIGNED UP for?

Let's do the election like that. Romney will become President in 2012 unless you go to the polls and "OPT OUT" so that Obama will remain in office. Only if enough people OPT OUT to create a majority of registered voters, Obama is out of there and Romney is in. Yes, this OPT OUT approach definitely has some interesting possibilities for the future. We can make it so a Republican candidate automatically wins unless enough people show up at the polls ot "OPT OUT" on a Republican becoming President.


- Collapse -
I agree. Anything like that should have

"opt out" as the default and "opt in" only permitted with properly signed, returned and verified paperwork. Some things we should not presume.

- Collapse -
Not to disagree, because mostly I do

but what about the fact that many won't opt out even when they know about it but most wouldn't opt in either in some programs.

The change that if your employer has a 401K you're automatically opted in at the match level unless you opt out. That really increased enrollment I understand, and everyone should certainly see where it's coming out of their check every pay period.

I'd go more with a method that forced you to do one or the other rather than an assumed opt in I think.

It's so weird, even when we know about something, even when we know we should, even when we intend to do it, somehow often we don't get it done.

- Collapse -
This "opt out" concept

sounds like a hangover from the days of long distance phone slammers. They claim you are now their customer to current telephone company and then you belong to them unless you "opt out". Didn't we get enough of that foolishness back then?! Remember when someone like a publisher could send you a "complimentary book" that was "free" but unless you "opted out" and sent it back, you were suddenly on a monthly book club and expected to pay them a bill each month? They passed a law to stop that practice, which really was a law against needing to "opt out" of the implied contract you'd accepted. Yet, here we are again, same ol' crap, now being pushed in the school system by a governmental body.

- Collapse -
Roger...if I might

My thinking is based on my skeptic's view that only a very few parents will bother to read what comes home. I suspect the great majority won't be paying attention and will have no idea which option was selected for them if they didn't respond. I would want nothing of a medical nature given to or done to children without verified parental knowledge and consent....unless it was an imminent medical emergency, of course. There will be those who consider a possible pregnancy to fit that criteria. I don't. I would make extra effort to contact parents who did not respond. It would only be proper that I set a good example in showing my interest in their getting their input rather than acting with the same disinterest that they showed. We have to be better than the ones we're critical of.

- Collapse -

I can agree parents should be involved in medical decisions affecting their children. I'm not sure what age you cut it off.

Traditionally it was 18, but the about only thing that applies to now is the right to work unlimited hours for whatever you can get and voting. Oh and I guess to join the military without a parent signature.

Side note, I hear parents complaining about the universities will not inform them of their child's grades, class schedule, discipline problems, or anything else since if the kid is 18, they're legally an adult no matter if the parent is footing the bill.

But parents not reading what comes home from school, or in the mail from school, starts to slide into the they don't care territory. There is a huge area in between I admit, but you surely can see how it can progress in that direction.

We often try 15 year olds as adults for crime now. Science now claims male brain area that recognizes future consequences isn't mature until 25, or it did a couple of years ago. And they're still arguing about what constitutes insufficient mental or emotional ability to be legally responsible for your own actions.

Parents should be involved in these decisions. Ok, how do you make them answer yes or no to a question from the school?

- Collapse -
Oh goodie........

>>>>>>>The 98% of the parents that would have OPTED IN may have talked to their kids and they trust their kids to make the right choices, and they don't feel THEY have to make decisions for their children....ALL part of growing up.>>>>>>>>>

So the state of NYC leaves it up to a 14 year old to be 'adult' enough to make decisions for themselves to get a 'pill induced' abortion and you're saying that 98% of the parents agree with them, but they aren't old enough to decide for themselves that the school should give them an aspirin for a headache.

- Collapse -
RE: So the state of NYC leaves it up to a 14 year old

Because the parents did not respond, you make the leap that the state has let NYC decide.


by NOT responding, the parents, NOT THE state of NYC, have left "it up to a 14 year old to be 'adult' enough to make decisions for themselves"

'pill induced' abortion

Still on "abortion"?...If/when there is NO pregnancy..there is no abortion.

What possible reason can you give for only 2% of the people Opting OUT?

- Collapse -
How many times

when you were a kid did the school send home something for your parents to read/see/sign and the parent never got it? If the notices weren't mailed but sent home with the kid, the chances are pretty good that parents never got the notice. It's a much better way to not have the schools involved in this to begin with......but if not, then the parents should be automatically OPTED OUT rather than OPTED IN.

The children ARE the ones making the decision to request the pill the 'morning after', thus giving the schools statistics on how many kids are really having sex at 14 the 'night before'. THAT'S why the parents HAVE to OPT OUT instead of OPT IN. The more info the government has on your family, the happier 'they' are.

BUT...those same kids aren't allowed to make the decision that they need an aspirin at the same school and be able to get it. You don't see that there is something horribly wrong with that picture?

- Collapse -
RE: How many times
How many times when you were a kid did the school send home something for your parents to read/see/sign and the parent never got it?

When the same thing that was sent home was also published in the newspaper and on TV and the Radio? And my parents never found out about it?

Do you really want me to answer your question?
- Collapse -
(NT) Parents at the 14 schools were sent letters
- Collapse -
Why opt out vs. opt in?

Probably because in neighborhoods like these, too much of the time the parents neither know nor care what the kids are doing, if the parents are even around much. That's why. "Opt out" gives the neglected kids a better chance than "opt in."

This program is not intended to encourage sexual activity any more than sex ed (which you just acknowledged works).

- Collapse -
Actions have consequences, Josh

The program may not have intended to encourage sexual activity, but that's exactly the consequences they are ending up with. Just because a girl doesn't end up knocked up doesn't mean that the program is any good. NYC has lowered the stats on pregnant teenage girls because of the educational reform, NOT because they can freely dispense pills to make sure they aren't pregnant....especially when that same school system isn't allowed to dispense an aspirin for a headache. Aborting/preventing a pregnancy ISN'T the city's responsibility by willy-nilly handing out a quick fix nor does it have a place in that girl's life to allow her at age 14 to make those kinds of decisions for herself and then 'like a good neighbor or a genie in the bottle granting wishes AFTER the fact, the school is there' to give the nod. She has already made ONE bad choice....the school is encouraging her to make another......without parental consent. But in the meantime, the school will be keeping stats that the government will have in their grubby little fists about somebody's private life. Isn't it enough for you that Obamacare will have every single one of your medical records permanently etched into a database and shared with any agency it deems fit to have them?

- Collapse -
And I assume....

......you have stats to show how this new program is causing an increase in sexual activity among the students participating in it?

- Collapse -
since it just started

there aren't any stats........but you can be sure that the liberals will be showing inflated numbers soon enough, and then the wave across the country begins........

- Collapse -
NYC's solution

is "idiot bashing" to try and solve every problem. A little "bible bashing" might do them wonders instead. The Bible says to get married before having sex and children. Wow, what a concept, one that works when followed properly. The NYC approach is "have sex and then take this pill, maybe it will work, and if it doesn't, maybe the baby will be born with problems, etc".

- Collapse -
No, some would rather

they be taught to keep their legs together until they were married and then have children. Then there are others who think those who live life correctly should be penalized to pay for the mistakes others make. Choices always have consequences.

- Collapse -
(NT) Are you in favor of free abortions for black women?
- Collapse -
RE: Are you in favor of free abortions

Yes.... AND for white women also...even women that are neither white or black....ALL women...BUT NOT men...NO men should have free abortions.

If they can afford them Devil

- Collapse -
So, even if they were only for

black women, you'd be OK with that. Very interesting.

- Collapse -
I've read your response


- Collapse -
(NT) one wonders if these schools teach sex ed or abstinence?
- Collapse -
Is it one or the other?

You mean sex ed is only about having it now instead of suggesting a better time? I'd think the mention of abstinence shouldn't be an unlisted option...with or without the snickering.

- Collapse -
re: Is it one or the other?

Is this phrasing more agreeable to you?

One wonders if these schools teach anything about sex?

Actually, when they taught me sex ed back in the 1970's... one of the main lessons was if one doesn't have sex, then one can't get pregnant. Isn't that the same thing as teaching abstinence?

Has biology changed that much since I was a kid?

You tell kids not to drink, smoke or do drugs because it will negatively effect the rest of their formative years and adulthood. Let's say kids do all this anyway, and become drug addicts at a young age. If you could give them a pill to solve this problem, would you?

Now, You tell kids not to have sex and risk disease and pregnancy because it will negatively effect the rest of their formative years and adulthood. Let's say kids do all this anyway, and become diseased or pregnant at a young age. If you could give them a condom or a pill to solve this problem, would you?

CNET Forums