6th graders may get birth control pills in school?

[Ceicei]

One school system may soon be providing the pill for middle school students. Videoclip link from CNN Prime News. [The clip shows a short ad before the topic story.]

Thoughts and opinions? Pros and cons? Agree or disagree?

- Ceicei

 

[newGuy12]

One the one hand, it will be a good thing if it stops the students from being pregnant.

On the other hand, it seems very strange that 6th graders would be having sex to begin with. In this day in age, with such long life spans, it should be put off until later in life.

 

[JWLuiza]

One the one hand, it will be a good thing if it stops the students from being pregnant.

On the other hand, it seems very strange that 6th graders would be having sex to begin with. In this day in age, with such long life spans, it should be put off until later in life.

Strangely, even with longer lifespans, puberty is occurring earlier now than in centuries past. So the urge to have sex is also occurring earlier. There is some research on environmental estrogens.

I hope, when I have a daughter, she waits till she's 18... and if not, I hope she knows enough to be safe. (Same thing for my son... but I think there's a double standard based on gender...)

 

[CoryKS]

Tax dollars... is there nothing they can't do?

 

[MA-Caver]

Tax dollars... is there nothing they can't do?

What tax dollars can or can't do depends (it seems) on the morality of the law makers at the time.

It's a double standard based on gender true, but it's a double edged sword more than anything else. 1 in that it could help cut down on teenage and pre-teen pregnancy but it also can encourage teens to have sex because they're misunderstanding the message and misguided to think that they'll "...be safe, because she's on the pill...". It also can bring rise to more occurrences of acts of pedophilia and child rape if the perps have an idea that the girl they've got their eye on cannot get pregnant because she's on the pill. Not that it probably wouldn't stop them anyway but it raises their justification and broadens their rationalization and narrows their "gotta be careful" margins.

I'd be against it, truth be told because of the morality issue of it. 6th graders should be given contraceptives and should be taught abstinence instead. Oh sure once they're alone it's gonna be difficult to stop them if they're going to do it anyway so might as well give them the pill to keep (her) in school. That kind of rationalization is misguided thinking and shows a skewed sense of justifying the need to impliment such a program.
It also sends the wrong message.

 

[CoryKS]

I'd be against it, truth be told because of the morality issue of it. 6th graders should be given contraceptives and should be taught abstinence instead. Oh sure once they're alone it's gonna be difficult to stop them if they're going to do it anyway so might as well give them the pill to keep (her) in school. That kind of rationalization is misguided thinking and shows a skewed sense of justifying the need to impliment such a program.
It also sends the wrong message.

I don't see it as a morality issue at all. Whether you want to give 6th graders birth control, condoms, or really ugly glasses, knock yourself out. But take the money out of your own wallet, mmkay?

 

[JBrainard]

I think it's overdue, although condoms would be better.
While parents should be teaching their children how to be responsible sexually, many don't. Many other parents are simply are out of touch and don't realize that you have to have "the talk" much earlier in a child's life these days. Sad fact is, it's not that uncommon to see girls getting pregnant as early as age 12.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I am split mentally on this one. On the one hand I do not like to think of 6th graders having sex nor do I wish to condone or encourage such but if they are I would rather they be provided some sort of protection from birth and disease
as for our tax dollars paying for it well its better than spending the money on some of foolishess that the goverment dose

 

[Kacey]

As a middle school teacher, I have a real problem with it from a moral perspective. Schools were originally established to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic - not morality, which should come from the home. The school I work at teaches everything from bicycle safety to health (including contraception and a unit on suicide) to manners... all sorts of things that should be taught at home and aren't. I didn't have time to watch the entire clip (I have 10 minutes left of my lunch break) - but this is something that I don't think is the responsibility of the schools. Teach them about contraception as part of Health class... okay. More education on why sex at that age might be a bad idea... okay. Provide them with contraception... no.

If the parents are so irresponsible as to not be preventing such activity, then perhaps it is an issue for Social Services to decide on a case-by-case basis - but this is outside the purview of the public schools.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I may have seen some physically impressive 6th graders but I have yet to meet one that had the mental comprehension to realize the responsibilities of being pregnant or having a child.
Dose giving birth control products to a person of this age violate or go against the statutory rape laws of most states

 

[tellner]

Not good. They shouldn't be distributed without a thorough physical exam by an OB/GYN or at least GYN Nurse Practitioner. They are definitely not appropriate for some women, particularly without careful followup care. And I am not happy about pharmaceuticals being distributed without parental involvement. Barrier methods? They don't have the same risk of side effects.

On the plus side, a lot of young women are sexually active but simply can not talk to their parents about these matters. Considering the horrendous cost of birth control these days (thank you Congress, Bush and Big Pharma!) anything that makes it easier and less expensive for them to prevent unwanted pregnancy is not entirely bad. It's obvious that the current program of just saying "Don't do it!" doesn't work. It's time to inject reality back into the process.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Nanny State at its "finest".

 

[Ceicei]

Not good. They shouldn't be distributed without a thorough physical exam by an OB/GYN or at least GYN Nurse Practitioner. They are definitely not appropriate for some women, particularly without careful followup care. And I am not happy about pharmaceuticals being distributed without parental involvement. Barrier methods? They don't have the same risk of side effects.

I have to agree with you. I discovered early in my marriage that I was severely allergic to birth control pills. Schools/government cannot just assume that birth control are safe with minimal side effects for young people. How do they know whether there will be problems later down the road for those who start on birth control really early?

I'd rather leave this under the responsibility of parents, who ideally know the medical history of their own children better and keep in close communication.

- Ceicei

 

[tellner]

As a middle school teacher, I have a real problem with it from a moral perspective. Schools were originally established to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic - not morality, which should come from home

That's not entirely true. They were also intended to create good citizens who were prepared for life as Americans. If you look at period teacher instruction manuals there's a fair bit of that. I don't want someone else's religion crammed down my child's throat nor mine down theirs. But there is certainly room for teaching basic civic virtues.

The problem is that a lot is not being taught at home. The schools are left having to take up the slack where nobody else will. I don't like it. I know teachers don't like it. But that's the hand they've been dealt. They have to play it as best as they can.

The school I work at teaches everything from bicycle safety to health (including contraception and a unit on suicide) to manners... all sorts of things that should be taught at home and aren't. I didn't have time to watch the entire clip (I have 10 minutes left of my lunch break) - but this is something that I don't think is the responsibility of the schools. Teach them about contraception as part of Health class... okay. More education on why sex at that age might be a bad idea... okay. Provide them with contraception... no.

It's not an easy problem to solve, but take a look at what we have now. We have a law against comprehensive, factual sex education. All sex education must say "Don't have sex." It is forbidden to discuss birth control except to state that it is not reliable (which is not what an honest person would call true) and that condoms do not help prevent AIDS (another, emm, lie).

Honestly, we were better off with the sex ed I got twenty five years ago. There was a discussion of how the bits worked, the changes with maturation, how pregnancy happened, how contraceptives worked and what amounted to "Ask your parents about morals. Remember to make responsible decisions. You can't support a wife and baby." [Sex Ed was segregated by gender back then] There was also some frank question and answer - Yes, you can get pregnant first time standing up. No, you can't get pregnant from oral sex. No, you won't turn gay if you get an erection in the gym shower. Yes, girls get horny, too. No, you're not the only sixteen year old virgin. Most of your classmates are. The rest are worried about being pregnant."

The best approach I heard was a lot like the one towards self defense: Know what you're doing and why you're doing it. Make decisions based on your own values. Be prepared for the consequences of your actions. Don't do anything you wouldn't care to explain to the other person's family or in court.

Unfortunately, people get very stupid around emotionally charged issues. And the power hungry are always looking for another political football.

If the parents are so irresponsible as to not be preventing such activity, then perhaps it is an issue for Social Services to decide on a case-by-case basis - but this is outside the purview of the public schools.

I wish it were so. Since the social safety net has been shredded the police and the schools have been forced to take on the roles formerly filled by public health, mental health, suicide prevention, social welfare and other agencies that used to be specifically trained and charged with them. Until common sense is given the vote again they are stuck with those jobs. The question is how best to deal with the truckload of responsibility that has been dropped on them.

 

[CoryKS]

I might be able to get behind the idea of providing birth control for 6th graders, provided that the parents of each child to whom it is administered also receive birth control. If the rationale behind doling out contraceptives is that the kids can't accept responsibility for the outcome of their (potential) actions, then there's no reason why the standard can't be applied to the parents who have already proven their failure in this regard.

And yes, I am aware that the shots for men have not become available yet. It's just a matter of time.

 

[tellner]

I'd be overjoyed if the government would provide birth control at some sort of reasonable cost to parents. Do you know how much the price has gone up in the last year or so? It's appalling. Insurance companies will gladly cover Viagra, but not Ortho Novum. It would make a lot of families somewhat smaller, a bit richer and a lot less worried if they could space their children without paying through the nose.

I know that's not the point you were trying to score. But it is, perhaps, a better one

 

[Andrew Green]

I think giving any kind of pill to kids without parental permission and medical examination is asking for trouble. Condoms would be a much better option, however being a middle school they'd probably get used as balloons...

Teenagers are going to have sex. Nothing anyone says will change that. Sex is one of our strongest natural urges and something we relly on for survival, telling people its bad and they shouldn't do it is not going to work.

However I think it is rather ignorant to say that they should be responsible for there actions unless they are given the means with which to be responsible and the knowledge to go with it. That means teaching what birth control is, how effective it is, and making it easily accessible.

Kids are going to learn about sex, just a matter of where. Tell them nothing but "don't do it" and there only source of information will be other kids and porn. Which probably won't work out well.

 

[Kacey]

Not good. They shouldn't be distributed without a thorough physical exam by an OB/GYN or at least GYN Nurse Practitioner. They are definitely not appropriate for some women, particularly without careful followup care. And I am not happy about pharmaceuticals being distributed without parental involvement. Barrier methods? They don't have the same risk of side effects.

This is a very valid point that I overlooked while trying to read, type, and eat lunch - which is why I frequently don't post from work, as I only get 30 minutes for lunch, and often don't have time to read everything I'd like - then I forget what I read have to go back to the 24 hour search instead of the new items search.

On the plus side, a lot of young women are sexually active but simply can not talk to their parents about these matters. Considering the horrendous cost of birth control these days (thank you Congress, Bush and Big Pharma!) anything that makes it easier and less expensive for them to prevent unwanted pregnancy is not entirely bad. It's obvious that the current program of just saying "Don't do it!" doesn't work. It's time to inject reality back into the process.

This is also true - but simply because children cannot talk to their parents does not make it the schools' responsibility to take over - that's what lead to the current issues with the schools teaching things that go so far beyond what was originally intended.

That's not entirely true. They were also intended to create good citizens who were prepared for life as Americans. If you look at period teacher instruction manuals there's a fair bit of that. I don't want someone else's religion crammed down my child's throat nor mine down theirs. But there is certainly room for teaching basic civic virtues.

Teachers were expected to demonstrate appropriate morals, which is much more what the rules were about. Certainly, they were expected to teach by example - but in times past (time frame varies by location) teachers were enforcing the moral values taught at home - not presenting them as the primary source of instruction.

The problem is that a lot is not being taught at home. The schools are left having to take up the slack where nobody else will. I don't like it. I know teachers don't like it. But that's the hand they've been dealt. They have to play it as best as they can.

And yet, this is the conundrum we run up against: it's not being taught at home, so the schools must teach it instead... so the parents don't teach it because the schools are teaching it - which works until the schools teach something the parents object to, at which point the parents pull their children from the lessons - but still don't provide instruction at home.

It's not an easy problem to solve, but take a look at what we have now. We have a law against comprehensive, factual sex education. All sex education must say "Don't have sex." It is forbidden to discuss birth control except to state that it is not reliable (which is not what an honest person would call true) and that condoms do not help prevent AIDS (another, emm, lie).

Honestly, we were better off with the sex ed I got twenty five years ago. There was a discussion of how the bits worked, the changes with maturation, how pregnancy happened, how contraceptives worked and what amounted to "Ask your parents about morals. Remember to make responsible decisions. You can't support a wife and baby." [Sex Ed was segregated by gender back then] There was also some frank question and answer - Yes, you can get pregnant first time standing up. No, you can't get pregnant from oral sex. No, you won't turn gay if you get an erection in the gym shower. Yes, girls get horny, too. No, you're not the only sixteen year old virgin. Most of your classmates are. The rest are worried about being pregnant."

That might be what they teach in your area - in my area, they teach everything the way you describe, except that it's not segregated by gender. Parents can sign a form saying they don't want their child(ren) included for certain parts of the Health curriculum (and Health is a class mandated by state law) - but very few of ours do. Even so, I have a student who is 12 years old... and his mother is 25. Students spend an average of 13% of their waking time in school - and the schools cannot single-handedly fight the messages coming from everywhere else. His mother told me on one occasion that she had sex ed in school - she was taught that abstinence was the only truly effective form of birth control, that pregnancy can occur the first time, all the things you discussed - but one of her friends fed her the old line about "you can't get pregnant the first time", and she believed it, which is how she became pregnant at 12, and had a child at 13.

The best approach I heard was a lot like the one towards self defense: Know what you're doing and why you're doing it. Make decisions based on your own values. Be prepared for the consequences of your actions. Don't do anything you wouldn't care to explain to the other person's family or in court.

I don't dispute that - I just think that the schools should not be the only - or even primary - source of information on such subjects.

Unfortunately, people get very stupid around emotionally charged issues. And the power hungry are always looking for another political football.

I wish it were so. Since the social safety net has been shredded the police and the schools have been forced to take on the roles formerly filled by public health, mental health, suicide prevention, social welfare and other agencies that used to be specifically trained and charged with them. Until common sense is given the vote again they are stuck with those jobs. The question is how best to deal with the truckload of responsibility that has been dropped on them.

All too true.... but I neither agree with it nor like it. I do it because it must be done - but as long as the schools are doing it alone, or with minimal support from the family and community, it will remain ineffective.

 

[MJS]

I have to agree with those that suggest a medical exam. I don't see how someone could prescribe something like that without one. Personally, if anything should be handed out, it should be condoms. Of course, sex ed. is an important part of education as well.

I realize that some may think that handing things out like this in school but the fact remains that kids are going to have sex. IMO, it seems like the more people steer kids away, the more it sparks their interest. Personally, I'd rather see kids properly edicated and condoms handed out, than a young child getting pregnant.

Mike

 

[Andrew Green]

I realize that some may think that handing things out like this in school but the fact remains that kids are going to have sex. IMO, it seems like the more people steer kids away, the more it sparks their interest. Personally, I'd rather see kids properly edicated and condoms handed out, than a young child getting pregnant.

Mike

I don't think it's as much sparks curiosity as sets off there ******** detectors, kids aren't stupid. If they are being lied to, they'll realize it and reject the information completely. Without another source, they got nothing.