Robert Winner


This conversation is closed.

Should 50 NYC high school be allowed to dispense "plan B" morning after pills to girls 14 and up.

FACT: More than 7,000 NYC 15-17 year old girls get pregent each year

FACT: More than two thirds end in abortions

FACT: Sex under the age of 16 (most states) is statutory rape

FACT: Plan B requires a prescription at the drug store if under 17

FACT: Carrying aspirin to school is a no no. Must be given to a nurse to dispense as other meds are by approval of parents and doctors.

The debate is about if schools should be allowed to offer/dispense prescription meds without a prescription?

Is the "morning after pill" a form of abortion

Does making this pill available "OK" sex

This debate is not about women's rights but rather about the protection and best interests of children. Thank You.

  • thumb

    Gail .

    • +2
    Sep 28 2012: FACT: The Northeast (including NY) has the lowest teen pregnancy rates
    FACT: The South and Southwest (including AZ) have the highest teen pregnancy rates
    FACT: Those states with sex-education programs have the lowest rates
    FACT: Those states favoring abstinence-only have the highest rates.
    FACT: The more fundamentalist (evangelical) christian, the higher the teen pregnancy rate.

    I don't think that Arizona (12th highest rates) should be getting involved in NYC politics (in the lowest 10 rates). New York City, and others of the largest cities, have unique problems. The slums in these cities are grotesque places where too many children must raise themselves against all odds. As much as I don't want schools to be these children's parents, the bottom line is that in these places, the school IS the only effective parent to too many children. A morning-after pill along with some sex-education can save lives and protect children from terrible social abuse.

    I would much rather give a morning-after pill and education to a tacitly abandoned child in the South Bronx than know that a child is giving birth to a child that will suffer terribly in life because society is blind to what we are doing "to" the poorest of the poor.

    I don't think that a zygote qualifies as human life.
    • thumb
      Sep 28 2012: it is a serious thing .think if you give a birth .you willcreate a person .it is not a momet it is sixty or even more years .

      about this i want to say three points
      before i want to give you a example, in china the poor have a high pregnancy rate,the poor the higher birth ,the higher the poor ,it is a cycle
      what do you think of this
      ok next the point
      point one ; wealth more children poor less
      two ; before you want a child ren ,ask do you like children ,
      three ; noce given better do it
      • thumb

        Gail .

        • 0
        Sep 28 2012: I thought that China limits the number of children to one. Am I misinformed?
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2012: No. you are right
          or exactly han national is limited to one while minority nationality can have two .
          i am sorry to have confused you it is between the60s and 90s
    • thumb
      Sep 28 2012: Once again you have attempted to redirect our attention. The question is "should schools be allowed to offer/dispense prescription drugs without a prescription?"
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2012: It's a question Robert. Chen's answer is a reason why. If we don't distribute pills like this we may end up like china, having to regulate the number of births in the US.
        • thumb
          Sep 29 2012: My reply was to TED Lover. See the one arrow. Thanks. Bob.
      • thumb

        Gail .

        • 0
        Sep 29 2012: I did answer your question. Perhaps you could re-read my answer. It's not that complicated.
        • thumb
          Sep 30 2012: You are right it is not complicated. Question is should the schools offer prescription drugs without a prescription? Is that against the law? Your answer addressed the social issues.

      • thumb

        Gail .

        • +1
        Sep 30 2012: I have no problem allowing NY (that has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the nation) to make their own decisions, just as I have no problem allowing your home state, that has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates to make its own decision.

        Your question made the problem a social issue. It began with FACT, 7,000 NYC 15-17 year olds get pregnant each year. That is a social issue. But you never mention that NY has a much lower teen pregnancy rate than most of the country. 7,000 a year sounds like a lot to someone who has never been to NY or doesn't know the demographics.

        If your ONLY question was whether or not public schools should be distributing Rx drugs without the Rx, then you could have stated it without the misleading emotional rhetoric. It shouldn't make any difference what drug is being handed out. But you made it about which drug was being handed out, and you made it a social/political debate about women's rights and abortion, even as you denied that it is.

        If my daughter had been afraid to come to me with a problem, I would certainly have hoped that someone would help her - for her own protection and best interests - not to mention the best interests of the potential person that might have been created. (Most teen pregnancies are from date rape). But my daughter wasn't afraid of me, so I would have no need to fear or get angry about the law. That's what responsible parenting is supposed to be about.

        Sorry if your daughter was afraid to come to you with a problem. (And very sorry for your daughter)

        The morning after pill is not an abortion pill. it merely prevents the fertilized egg from implanting by making the womb inhospitable.

        I suggest that AZ should fix its own problems before it sets its sights on the northeast. If you're doing it wrong (by virtue of high teen pregnancy rates), you do not have the creds to have a believable opinion.

        NY is not a theocracy.
        • thumb
          Sep 30 2012: You make great assumptions that my daughter is afraid of me. That is a unfounded insult. Once again as is becoming your trade mark you refuse to address the question I put straight forth to you.

          1. Is it in the schools mission statement to provide drugs?

          2. Is it against the law to give prescription drugs to a minor without a prescription?

          It is not complicated and can be answered yes or no without declaring war between states or insults to me or my daughters.
      • thumb

        Gail .

        • +1
        Sep 30 2012: "Nurse practitioners or physicians dispense the pills, and parents can sign an opt-out form preventing their daughters from taking part. Only about 1 to 2 percent of parents have opted out, according to the city Health Department." (Quote from USA Today report on the matter.) Both physicians and nurse practitioners may dispense prescription drugs. So though it is still against the law to give the pill to a woman under 17 without a prescription or parental permission, it isn't being done at all. You're sounding the alarm for naught.

        I do not know the mission statements of the schools involved. If you want to know them, I imagine that you could find them as easily as I found the above information.

        I do not believe that making this pill available gives an OK to sex. I believe, and "evidence" proves, that giving the pill to a terrified young girl, along with some sex education, reduces teen pregnancy significantly. It's not the pill that works. It's the sex education!

        The Arizona Board of Education requires abstinence to be stressed if sex ed is taught. There is ABUNDANT proof that this approach CAUSES teen pregnancies.

        Information gives young people knowledge that they need to make better choices. It removes it from the abstinence question and moves it to the responsibility for your actions - as in full awareness of ALL the consequences of sex before maturity and autonomy. It helps girls understand their rights and how to cope with a pushy testosterone driven adolescent by teaching them what date rape is and what to expect while dating. It teaches adolescent boys how to treat a girlfriend respectfully. It teaches them about how their bodies work. And it works! So far, it is the most successful way of ending abortions that we know about - short of birth control before the fact.
  • Sep 27 2012: "The debate is about if schools should be allowed to offer/dispense prescription meds without a prescription?"

    No, that's a hard legal issue, but I suspect that's not why most people are upset in this case, they only care about it because it has something to do with sex and religious people feel the need to legislate sexual morality, because you know, god rules the universe but he has nothing better to do than punish people for enjoying sex.

    While we're at it, I was surprised plan B requires a prescription in the US since the US requires prescriptions much less often than most other countries and even allows commercials to air on tv for drugs that require prescriptions in other countries. The objective eye may see this and its associated problems as being much more of a problem than girls in high school not keeping their legs together.

    Countries that are less prude have much lower rates of teen pregnancy, higher average age for the "first time", and even fewer abortions. I'm also pretty sure the reason plan B requires a prescription for minors in the US has to do with religion: clearly medical issues are ignored for adults and this is actually one of those drugs that sell without prescription in some European countries.
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2012: More so, states in the United States that are less prude, have lower instances of teen pregnancy. The worst places in the US, are the places that still teach "Abstinence only"... and yes, we still have states that do that... at public school... It's very sad.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2012: I disagree John. I don't think religious folk want to legislate morality on this issue I think they want to protect their family rights to make their own decisions within their family units.
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2012: This is actually a fascinating subject... I'm on a razors edge myself.

    If you're under 17, you are a child, and thus you have no right to have an abortion, or gain access to contraception in some states, without notifying your parents. Why is it so important you notify your parents for a medication with no serious health implications? Because it's a religious issue, life is involved, at 17 parents can still, to an extent legally force their child to be religious. Distributing the pill to someone underage, violates the parents freedom of religion, as the child does not have a choice. I do not have a source on this, but I will find one and post it. This is almost always how these laws are decided... It's interesting some of the rulings freedom has given us.

    I am against the law which requires women under 17 to get a prescription, or parental consent, because some families are very oppressive, and will not take women to the doctor, or drug store for birth control or morning after pills.

    However, I think I am also against getting the state involved. Teenagers are going to have sex... but we don't have to make it seem permissable, it's certainly not the best idea, unless you're lucky enough to have a real strong head on your shoulders as a teenager. The morning after pill, is interesting, and especially bothersome in this instance. If the school does not notify parents, theoretically, it could become the new normal practice, after casual sex, to go into school and ask for a pill. Not a healthy habit to start at 16...

    Interestingly enough, I'm virtually certain, the only reason the public school considers this, is because of oppressed religious teens suing or at least protesting, because state law requires them to get permission to have sex. So I would overthrow the perscription requirement... but do parents have the right to make religious decisions for their 16 year old girls... That's a tough one. If the prescription law stays, public school may help.
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2012: David, I am not as sure as you that it is religious, however, you may be right. My first thought would be that a 14 - 16 year old is in many cases not fully ready for sex and the most compelling reason is that their decision making is not very good.

      I do not want a sharp talking 21 year old man making hay with the local kids. I do not want local kids to get diseases and not be aware. I don't want kids to go places to have sex and find themselves in really dangerous situations. What if the man panics and kills the minor.

      These are not religious concerns ... these are safety and health concerns.

      David, I wanted to know where my kids were and who they were with. That is not religious concern ..... that is parental love.

      All the best. Bob.
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2012: "Despite an FDA advisory council’s recommendation in 2003 to allow prescription-free sales of the drug, the FDA repeatedly delayed its decision, in large part to appease the conservative anti-abortion faction, many critics said. In 2006, the FDA finally made the morning-after pill available without a prescription to women aged 18 or older. In 2009, the age cutoff was lowered to 17."

        Robert, I respect your opinion on many issues... but often you fall into the conservative bubble a bit too far... How, in your second paragraph, do you get to 21 year old men raping 14-16 year old girls?

        In providing contraception to children in New York, who are already having sex, as evidenced by teen pregnancy... How are the democrats ending laws against statutory rape? Your example has nothing to do with your topic whatsoever, it's a straight fear play.

        The health and safety concerns, from the other side of the table, is there are millions of 16 year old girls having sex, whether we like it or not... Their parents refuse to buy them birth control, and the law makes it illegal for them to purchase birth control...

        Finally... In the case of rape, the argument for free morning after pills at schools... is the strongest. The most common forms of rape, are teenage, and college, statutory, and date rape. If a young girl goes out at night, and gets drugged, and has sex with someone... What could be better than giving her last minute birth control, and counseling as soon as she comes in the next day?

        That was the other side of the emotional argument. The rational argument however is quite simple... 7000 teenage girls got pregnant in New York last year... How many of them would have taken the morning after pill, after their night of unpredicted sex... if they didn't have to tell their parents? How does forcing them to tell their parents increase odds of helping them?
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2012: I meant this to go in the reply box to the questions you posed to me. My mess up.

    I have looked this up, as I knew nothing about it either. Here is what I found: Plan B is available without prescription for women who can prove they are 17 or older. It is available only with prescription for those under 17. It is not an abortion pill. If someone is already pregnant, it is useless.(I won't go into what it does do, but it is a contraceptive).
    The side effects are the background ones for almost any medication. That is, they are things like possible nausea, dizziness, I think it said vomiting or maybe fatigue. So they fall in the category of discomfort rather than health risk.
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2012: So we have the same problem. The school is essentially dispensing a prescription drug with out the benefit of a prescription to minor children.

      Question two would have to be ... Why is it a prescription to those under 17. That would indicate to me that a medical examination is advisable prior to taking the medication for some reason.

      I, as I am sure you, still have a lot of questions.

      Again thanks ...... Bob.
      • thumb
        Sep 26 2012: I looked up both answers.

        I will start with the first, but not being a lawyer, I am NOT reliable as an interpreter of statute: There seem to be two avenues through which prescription drugs can be dispensed without prescription (and it matters what sort of drug it is). One is that some can be dispensed by "a practitioner." I don't know what that includes- for example, whether some nurses might have such a license to prescribe meds. A second case is in emergency situations with the approval of the Attorney General.

        For the second question, my source is less reliable, but I don't have time to seek something more authoritative. The reason prescriptions are required for younger kids is the judgment that someone medical needs to know what's going on for younger kids whose personal judgment is not necessarily reliable. Again, that does not come from a source of reliability I can verify.
        • thumb
          Sep 26 2012: The reply to the second question makes sense. I'll buy that. As to the first ... I know a PA and even he has to have the prescription checked and signed by a doctor so I am thinking a nurse is not allowed. On the second instance .. I am pretty sure that a person might get pregnant in the near future does not constitute an emergency.

          But you did your homework.

          Always enjoy talking to you. Bob.
      • Sep 27 2012: @Robert

        Fritzie is right, the side effects aren't so bad and it sells without prescription in Belgium and the Netherlands and (for adults) in the US. I'd say societal/religious concerns are the reason a 16 year old in the US would need a prescription.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2012: Is there a provision to make sure the parents have the last word in obtaining the Rx?
      • thumb
        Sep 29 2012: John, I am not following the issue. There must be a lot of material about this, though, from every angle in the proceedings in New York.

        The protection of minors is a critical issue to everyone.
        • thumb
          Sep 29 2012: This is the first I heard about it Fritzie. I think some sneaky business is afoot. The parents have to sign an Opt-out form and if the schools didn't make the parents aware, I'm sure many kids didn't take the information form home to mom and dad.

          By the time the parents find out.... like I said... Little Sally has had a taste of adulthood.

          When it comes to side affects, we won't know until the stats from rising incidents of VD start rolling in. I'm betting this is a pharmaceutical back endeavor to get lots of Tax payer money
          in partnership with the Rockefeller foundation to further erode the family unit.

          There will be some fallout about this.
      • thumb
        Sep 29 2012: Hi, John. I have just looked up the general law in this area.

        If I am reading this correctly, New York and twenty other states already allow minors to obtain contraceptive services without parent permission.
        • thumb
          Sep 29 2012: I did not know this.

          It makes me want to take another look at the rate of pregnancy in teenage girls and Rise in teenage STD's.
          Looking at the figures below, I now understand why the rise is happening base on the information you gave above.

          Interesting fact:

          "Sexually transmitted diseases are reaching epidemic levels in Wisconsin and across the country. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are 253,500 new cases of sexually transmitted infections in Wisconsin each year. A key reason: a surge in infections among teens, according to a Capital Times analysis of state health reports and interviews with local experts"

          "One in four teenage girls in the U.S. has an STD, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

          Basically, teenagers are more sexually active if the social constraints are loosed. It has little to do with preventative contraceptive measures. If the social constraints are also loosed, the teenagers WILL follow the course of less resistance.

          If this same information was available to the experts who drafted the law allowing the distribution of the Day-after pill, what does that say about the dynamics of the debates when they were working on it? I think we have an example of Pharmaceutical lobbying and people wanting to get their hands of Taxpayer money.

          Perhaps an example of how big money doesn't give a hoot about our children as long as they make money.
  • thumb
    Oct 5 2012: This is just a bit of information about the legality of the day after pill:

    "...Plan B, one form of emergency contraception that can prevent pregnancy when taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, was first approved by the FDA in 1999 for prescription use only for women of all ages. In 2006, Plan B was approved by the FDA as an over-the-counter form of emergency contraception for women ages 18 years and older; women ages 17 and younger needed a doctor's prescription in order to receive Plan B. Then, in April 2009, the FDA issued a statement announcing that in accordance with a court's order, it would make Plan B available to women 17 and older without a prescription...."

    Read the whole article here:
  • thumb
    Sep 29 2012: My wife suggested that it is cheaper to deal with the STD than it is to deal with babies.

    Look at it this way, no having babies:
    1. lowers the population;
    2. Lowers the rate of abortions.
    3. reduces the cost to the taxpayer (due to babies and abortion costs).

    While a rise in STD's is a problem:

    1. the cost of treating those STD's is cheaper than dealing with issues of abortion.
    2. The population of unwanted babies is decreased;
    3. The physiological impact on Teenagers getting pregnant is decreased;
    4. Opportunities for higher education are increased by lack of dropout rate due to pregnancies.

    Actually I think if we thought about it a long time we could find all manner of reasons to increase this list. In reality, it decreases technical problems while disregarding the social implications.
    There are, however on the greater social level, a decrease in shared stress:
    1. My child is pregnant.
    2. My insurance rates go up.
    3. I have to raise my grandchild.
    4. I have to send my grandchild to college.

    I guess, socially speaking, there is some stress reduction associated with less babies and pregnancy in general.
    The STD is just a shot in the rear.

    Bacterial resistance due to over use of antibiotics would continue to be a problem and, with the increasing rate of STD's, could come back to haunt us, socially speaking.

    I wonder how abortion clinics feel about this?
    Would it affect stem cell research?

    Makes you want to scratch your head.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2012: I always appreciate when Mrs. Moonstroller adds her thoughts.
    • thumb
      Sep 30 2012: John, STD in the past was just a shot in the butt ... and now it kills.

      The sticky ole question about the little ole thing called the law remains.

      Hay to Ms M.

      • thumb
        Sep 30 2012: I think John answered your question without realizing it "Nurse practitioners or physicians dispense the pills". In order to be a "school nurse" in New York, you must be a physician, or a nurse practioner, both of which have the legal right to write some prescriptions.

        A priest of a small obscure faith, completely opposed to interfering with gods plan, has a crazy rebellious 14 year old daughter. She is sexually active. After a night of intercourse, she realizes she's forgotten to take the pill, she rushes to the pharmacist, but needs parental permission. If she asks her father permission, he may beat her... Does the state have a role in helping this young woman, despite the fact she has made a terrible mistake, and turned on her family?
        • thumb
          Sep 30 2012: David, I researched New york school nurse requirements and found no mention of the need for advanced degrees.

          Just as a term of address Physicians are called Doctor ... Practioners are called PAs and NAs ... Nurses have different levels also such as PN, LPN, etc ..... When one address the professional as a nurse that identifies the work level and education.

          Dave, The girls you described is in a pickle no doubt. However, the law states that she is 14 and cannot be given this medication without a presctription. As a minor what agency has the right in a non life threatening situation to treat her without parental consent. If the father beats her the state may become involved through child protection.

          Your example brings another question. At 14 .. and as you said a very strict father ... how did she get the "pill" that she "forgot to take."

          The fact still remains .. at 14 the law requitres a prescription written specifically for her and secondly it is not in the schools charter to dispense medications without a prescription. Just for the record ... at $49 for 24 .... where does the school get the money to buy these pills .... if they are taking money designated for education and buying pills then are they breaking yet another law?

          Everyone has addressed the social issue ... I get it and am not adverse to helping those in need but not at the expense of breaking the law.

          Thanks for the input. Bob.
      • thumb
        Sep 30 2012: I'm sorry Robert. I don't understand your statement. Earlier I posted a comment stating I couldn't find anything. How is your research coming along?
      • thumb
        Oct 2 2012: I'm just making a guess here... but, I assume schools in which the school nurse is not an RN, or doctor, they cannot prescribe the pill. Thus, if this is not already the norm, it might be nudging schools to have a higher skilled workforce for dealing with children in packed districts.

        In New York, she can get "the pill", traditional birth control, without consent... I think, as John mentioned, even the "morning after pill" is legal in 26 states without prescription. States in which the pill is illegal for her to purchase, without consent, have made it so for religious, social reasons, to enhance family control. The intent makes sense, but the fact that teenage pregnancy is higher, in almost every state where they take this stance, shows that it doesn't work.

        You can't hide your children from the existence of birth control anymore... You have to talk to them about it, they'll be on the internet at 10... Life's hard, raise your kid well early.

        In New York, 2 dollars a pill for a few thousand students a year... It's a drop in the bucket, and I'm sure the state is paying for it. 98% of school funding comes from the state, New York invests in the education of its children big time, and it used to have an amazing public school system to show for it, though it has been lack in the last decade.

        I could have used the example of a good girl being date raped, with the same father, but I felt that was a bit too stereotypical of a liberal, to pretend it's all good people with good intentions who use these drugs, when the harsh reality, it's people who are hurting, but also acting irrationally, for the most part... and they don't take sex seriously enough.
        • thumb
          Oct 2 2012: Dave, The facts are very blurred and we are all guessing to a certain extent. The social problem is no doubt the elephant in the room. However, the law is to be obeyed. The 14 - 16 year olds are having sex no doubt ... it really does not hurt for them to be seen by a doctor and ensure that they understand the whole situation better. My decision making at that age was not the best ... my hormones were kicking in and my brain was shutting down. This is a bad time for kids and parents.

          Perhaps the schools should have had a opt in instead of a opt out. That would have taken much of this discussion away.

          Always good to talk to you. Be well. Bob.
  • thumb
    Sep 29 2012: Here it is... It's a done deal:

    "Nurse practitioners or physicians dispense the pills, and parents can sign an opt-out form preventing their daughters from taking part. Only about 1 to 2 percent of parents have opted out, according to the city Health Department."~ The Christian Science Monitor.

    I wonder how many parents know their kid are actually getting the pill. If parents have to sign an OPT-OUT form to stop the Nurse from servicing their child what if they don't know about the program? Can teens get this medication without parents knowledge? It sounds like it was designed this way, sort of a Google opt out disclaimer.

    There will be plenty of law suits about this. The implication is that the student can get the pill, take it, have sex and, if the parents find out then they can opt-out. But, it's a bit too late once little Mary Ann has tasted the fruits of adulthood.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2012: Hi John,

      Wouldn't it be easier to educate little Mary Ann at home (and school) about the responsibilities and consequences that come attached with the fruits of adulthood so she can make a wiser decision when the time comes?
      • thumb
        Sep 29 2012: There is no such thing as wisdom in a teenager where sex is concerned Andres. But you are correct Mary Ann should be educated. The problem is if you put it in the hands of the school system, they come up with ideas like this pill thing.

        I've raised 4 teenagers and I used to be one. Given the opportunity to have sex without the worry of becoming pregnant only assure that teens will indulge in it more often. The girl getting pregnant, when I was a teenage boy, severely limited my options. Desperate Teens, always resorted to the condom which could be a clumsy experience that could turn many girls off the the whole idea.

        When the birth control pill became available, mom's made sure their daughters had it. There was a problem with the attitude adopted by the males because it put the responsibility for prevention on the head of the girls, so the males could always say, "What! you're not on the Pill?" Before the Pill, it was the guys responsibility to make sure he had protection.
        There is another issue, the one of VD which the pill has no preventative effects.


        It it not uncommon for some boy and girls at the age of 12 to become sexually active. The pressure put on a 12 year old female body during pregnancy can be astonishing and can kill..

        Most medical experts agree that age 15 is the ideal age for females to have children for physiological reasons.

        If the parents are considered responsible for the activities of the daughter and do not want her to be sexuality active, because there is not enough food, resources, etc. or they (who have been in imitate connect with her for a long time) think she is not educated enough, who know best the State? or the parents? If the state raises all the children then the state knows best but they may use many teachers so no has that intimate relationship. I give plus 1 to the parents and a -3 to the state.

        It depends, ultimately on the society.
        • thumb
          Sep 29 2012: Indeed John... wisdom at such young age is perhaps just my far fetched dream.

          But i hope that more informed teenagers will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.

          I am glad you have brought up the topic of STD's into this discusion

          It sounds then like there are 3 issues to address here:

          1) Pregnancy prevention
          2) STD's
          3) if 1) and 2) are taken care of, is it wrong for these teenagers to become sexually active?

          I understood the main question to be related to issue 1), and I completely support you in the inclusion of issue 2) in the conversation.

          But i think 3) needs to be dealt with separately... I am by no means suggesting encouraging teenagers to become sexually active as soon as their bodies start pressuring them down that route. As you said, their wisdom is still a work in progress. But to use 1) and 2) as tools to try to enforce 3) seems to me bound to create only conflict and confrontation.

          My kids have been hearing in school about sex since they were in 4th and 5th grade, and not from their teachers. I should not close my eyes to that fact. And since I do not follow the good vs. evil tradition in my way to educate them, I have opted for talking to them openly about all the joys and consequences that come with maturing sexually. As well as their responsibility in respecting themselves and their partners once they start dating

          It remains to be seen if that way of teaching results in an earlier, average, or delayed start of their sexual activity, but by all means i make sure they get 1) and 2) even at this young age!

    • thumb
      Sep 30 2012: JM, I am still very fuzzy on your answer about where the specific student written prescription came from. Hence the original question about issuing prescription drugs without a prescription. That is illegal and could cost someone their license. With tough time already being here ... I am a single mom with a 14 year old girl who comes home with a prescription drug and finds out a state department is issuing them to her without my knowledge or consent .. John I am about to become very wealthy at the expense of the state school system. I talked to a lawyer friend who says he lays awake at night praying for this type of case to come along ... he called it a rain maker.

      I understand where everyone wants to prevent a pregency ... we all do. But where is it written in the mission statement of the school to issue prescription drugs. That is not their charter. I am not against helping them. I just do not see it as the state/schools job.

      Another HUGH question is where is the money coming from. On line the Plan B is $49.99 per box of 24. If the school is redirecting the money allocated by the state for education to purchase these prescription drugs then is that not also a crime. The company that supplies the school is smart enough to have the school purchasing agent sign a form that it will use the pills in accordance with the existing law. Another crime committed. And many more what if's .... By he way the warning that a prescription is necessary for anyone under 17 to use the product is on the box..

      The question remains .... Is this the schools job ... is their action legal ... and how is it being funded

      All the best. Bob.
      • thumb
        Sep 30 2012: Robert, you are asking the wrong person this question. I think we are still trying to figure out just what is/has occurred in this so called Plan B.
        I found this: "Parents are sent a letter informing them of the availability of contraception. If they do not check a box telling the school not to distribute contraceptives to their child, the student may access the drugs without permission.

        "We wait about a month to give parents a chance to read the letter and opt out," said Caraway. "After that, any student at one of these schools can get emergency contraception or a pregnancy test if they feel they may be pregnant or have had unprotected sex.", here

        And this: "Meanwhile, New York is one of 26 states that allow “all minors (12 and older) to consent to contraceptive services,” according to the Guttmacher Institute. Also, since 1991, New York City public high schools have dispensed free condoms to students, unless their parents sent in an “opt-out” form.

        Robert, I can't find one thing about the legality of giving this drug to children without their parents consent, who has the legal authority to distribute the drug without parental consent, etc.

        It's alarming as far as far as I'm concerned. I do not that when the moring after pill legislation went past president Obams desk, her shot it down for this reason. How it became law may have something to do with some states emergency powers laws. New York considers the increase in teen sexual activity as a state emergency.

        Go figure.

        I think it's tied to money, pharmaceuticals industry and the medical field. Times are hard so lets get the tax payers money. The same odd programs appeared during the 80's recession, remember?

        Last year Obama blocked the drug industry's plans to put the drug on the shelves instead of behind the counter. I guess they found a way around this.
  • thumb
    Sep 29 2012: Hi Robert,

    I am going to make a far fetched assumption here, that the children you mean to protect here are these 14 year olds. Please correct me if i am wrong.

    Under that assumption, then the answer to the main question is yes.

    A 14 year old who is already active sexually, will probably have better odds of a more fulfilling and successful life, if allowed to grow for another decade or so without having to become an inexperienced (and many times terrible) parent.

    The question of whether the morning after pill is a form of abortion is intended to re-draw the already fuzzy line of what people considers an abortion versus contraception. Does the legal system consider the morning after pill a form of abortion? Do they consider the "night-before" pill OK? what if it is a "night before" pill taken right before sex? is that OK?

    I am no expert but I think the morning after pill works very much like the night before pill, namely using estrogens and progesterone to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. So maybe the question is more general, whether schools should make any contraceptives available to these 14 yr olds at all (i still think the answer is yes)

    To answer the third question of whether making the pill available is to "OK" sex is a little pointless, since obviously these 14 yr old kids think it is "OK" for them, whether it is socially "appropriate" or not. The numbers above are proof that these kids are not waiting for an "OK" from anybody, and that has been the case for a long time. I don't think preventing sex is a schools responsibility. Educate kids about sex, yes, about pregnancy, absolutely, but being police?... hmmm, maybe not
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2012: yes.
    After completing high school or its equivalent in Belgium, I lived 1 year in the US a an exchange student in a high school.
    Here teenage girls take the pill if they feel they want to start their sexual life.
    Over there, for the first in my (young) life, I saw a pregnant teenage girl (she was 16 I think). I was completely taken aback.It was a big cultural shock.

    I then understood that teenage girls having sex in high school were sometimes (often) considered as "slutty" and girls who proclaimed that they were "waiting" were the "good" ones (they were the cheerleaders, etc.). It was a strange world for me as we such sharp distinction do not exist in Europe.

    Of course, the girl who got pregnant was in the latter category, willing to "wait". I guess getting a condom was sinful or shameful in her book. She was a junior. She got married to the guy (a senior). They divorced a couple of years later.
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2012: Absolutely. I wish they did that when I was a junior high school student.
  • Sep 27 2012: I can see all the practical reasons for this program, and it would probably do more good than harm.

    George Orwell would be saying I told you so.

    The girls should still see a doctor, before getting the first pill and periodically. Counseling should be part of the program too; one or two of the girls just might listen.

    The following is based on a layman's casual reading of articles and personal experience, and is strictly a personal opinion, but I think it gives a roughly accurate overview of a bad situation:

    Children and society have both changed. Children are physically ready for sex, and have sexual urges, as young as ten. Their brains do not fully develop judgment capabilities until seventeen. They are not socially ready for sex until about twenty. Socially and economically they have no business having children until about twenty five. So what "should" they do?

    This is what they are doing: Kids first learn about sex from internet pornography. Kids then have sex with kids, neither with any idea of what sex is really about or even how to make it pleasurable. Kids go to college and join the hookup culture, a form of social insanity. It is now common practice to learn about sex while drunk. We can do better.

    Try this for being coldly rational: Older people with education, training and sexual experience could be teaching the young to have sex, using condoms, by having sex with them. Now this is against the law, and for good reasons. But it could be put into a legal program of sex education starting as early as possible, even preschool. Parents would develop relationships with a number of potential sexual mentors they consider suitable, and introduce them to the child. Over years, the child develops relationships with these potential sexual mentors, knowing that when the child is ready, the child will choose one of them.

    The myth that there is no "right" way to grow up is an excuse we use to avoid the hard work of defining social insanity.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2012: I have reservation about this Barry. New York is a Catholic haven. The protest against it wil be strong.

      There was a strong group effort back in the 1930's that suggested using serialization as a method. They tried to get abortion legalized too but that failed. This organization lasted up into the 1970's and eventually became the focal point of pro choice organizations. The eugenics programs, as they were referred to, played a pivotal role in not only sterilizing young, poor girls and offering back door access to dark room abortion clinics, they expanded their role to include the sick and mentally disabled.

      Alexander Bell was a big supporter of these Eugenics programs and some bigger names were also involved. Some people believe that the day after pill will just turn into another Eugenics movement.

      I'm sure that the Rockefeller foundation is firmly behind this application. To them, the idea of further eroding the family units in the US just give them more influence to destroy the family unit altogether, which in their perspective is the same as eliminating the competition for their family.

      In a family sense, giving teenage girls the access to this pill without their parents permission will push those girls out of the family unit and into a state of adulthood before they are able to deal with it physiologically. If we are going to point them into the direction of adulthood at such an early age, why not give them the vote too?

      If mom and dad says no and the state say yes, it opens the door to state control over what happens in our families. What's the next step? Taking our children completely out of the control of the family unit?

      On the surface, it may appear to offer some protection and relief but underneath, it is a pathway to total state control of our freedoms and the erosion of the family unit.
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2012: I don't understand how anyone can by law dispense prescription medications of any kind without a prescription. Is that what is being debated?
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2012: Partially. I read the article on MSN home page and had a lot more questions than I had answers. I checked with my local drug store and said that it is by prescription for 17 and under and they require proof of age. Also it is $47.99 a box of 24. I typed in morning after pills and the article was a option there also. At that price to supply the NYC school districts must be staggering .... at tax payers expense.

      I wonder if they even notify the parents if they issue this. I think I would be mad ... very very mad.

      Do you know if there are side effects. Is this a abortion pill. I am not up to speed on this at all.

      Thanks for the reply