-
Alas, Dahlia, if you’re looking for a good argument for allowing condoms and not prescription birth control, I’m bound to disappoint. I somehow missed the info that the district has been passing out condoms for so long. At the risk of sounding like a fuddy-duddy (but to avoid being sexist) allow me to clarify: I’m not in favor of ANY school-sponsored birth control for 10- or 11-year-olds, for either boys or girls. Schools should not be condoning sex between middle-schoolers. Here’s a question: If a 12-year-old gets a prescription for the pill so she can have sex with her 17-year-old boyfriend, is the school contributing to statutory rape? And the flip side: If a school-provided condom breaks and a 12-year-old boy gets his girlfriend pregnant, is the school responsible? I smell lawsuit …
-
Rachael, your post on the decision of a Portland, Maine, middle school to allow students to get prescription birth control without parental notification was prescient. Everyone’s gone bonkers toady and O’Reilly is hardly even the most unhinged. (Best line from O’Reilly’s post today “It is ironic that the week my book "Cultural Warrior" comes out in paperback, intense culture battles erupt across the country.”) Imagine, Bill’s book comes out in paperback and culture battles happen in America!!!
I agree with you Rachael that there is something ick-inducing about giving birth control pill to 10-year-olds. But I am still not hearing any good argument for how this differs from handing out condoms – something the school had been doing for eight years. Is it the difference between providing birth control to girls instead of boys? Is it O’Reilly’s distinction that condoms prevent disease whereas pills prevent “only” pregnancy? Or is there something about offering someone else’s child a pill that makes the Portland scheme more intrusive?
Largely agree with Anne and Ms. Thatcher, but a quick note on yesterday’s blog criticism: It’s bizarre to me to hear that Slate is somehow better for the “Feminist Project” without a women’s blog than with it. It’s even harder to fathom how our women writers are better “feminists” if they avoid discussing women’s issues. Is this some new half-starved Beverly Hills feminism: Do everything you can to present yourself as less of a person than you actually are?
-
Soon after reading Amanda’s post on Susan Orr’s appointment to head the Office of Population Affairs—the office in the Health and Human Services Department that oversees family planning—I read that the school board in Portland, Maine, has—by an astounding (to me) 10-2 vote—decided to allow middle-students to get prescription birth control without parental notification.
Putting the two stories alongside each other demonstrates what a disheartening divide we still have on the topic of birth control, without even bringing up abortion. I might be the only person writing here who wishes abortion weren’t legal, but I’m a pragmatic pro-lifer: Birth control is a wonderful thing. Condoms, the pill, sponges—the more, the better. It’s beyond ridiculous to tell women that they shouldn’t have abortions and then oppose any means by which they can prevent pregnancy.
At least, I like to think I’m pragmatic on this issue. But when I read that people want to put 12-year-old girls on the pill and not notify parents, I’m horrified. Sure, you can throw up your hands and say, “They’re having sex anyway. Shouldn’t we do what we can?” But once you do that, where do you draw the line? Is there even a line left to draw? William Saletan had an interesting piece a few weeks ago that discussed how difficult it is to come up with an appropriate “age of consent.” One line from that piece (and I’m not trying to take Will out of context—his article dealt largely with statutory rape) seems relevant to this discussion: “Consent implies competence, and 12-year-olds don't really have that.”
I know the statistics show that offering birth control to teenagers doesn’t increase sexual activity. But so many people—parents, educators, volunteers—are working hard to help girls create build self-esteem and create the positive self-images that encourage them to say no to sex. Measures like this one seem to undercut those efforts. And isn’t one of the problems with education today that parents aren’t involved enough? By removing the parents from the equation here, you’re not doing anything to foster the strong family relationships that our children need.
(As an aside, I also find it odd that some schools have such a zero-tolerance policy for drugs that they will suspend a girl for taking a Motrin for PMS; yet in other places schools will help girls get the pill.)
After all that, I guess my question is this: Will we ever reach a middle ground, where we can agree that it’s stupid to say “abstinence rules,” yet still think it’s a pretty damn bad idea to give 12-year-olds the pill behind their parents’ back?
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?