On Birth Control, Parental Rights, and Parental Responsibility

For those who haven't heard, on 10/17/2007, the Portland Maine School Committee just approved a proposal that allows students at Kind Middle School to be prescribed birth control. The proposal is talked about before its passage in this article at the Portland Press Herald site. It passed with a 7-2 vote on Wednesday night.

Let me explain some of the details. First, this covers students in grades 6-8 which generally covers ages 11-13. It is only available to parents who have given permission for their children to be treated in the King Middle School's health center. There is no gradations of permission, meaning that if you give permission for your child to be treated for a sprained ankle they suffered during gym class or even Tylenol for a headache, you also have given permission for them to obtain birth control.

Originally, this was simply the distribution of condoms. As of the passage of the proposal it also means that 11 year old girls will be able to go in and be examined by a physician or nurse practitioner and receive prescriptions for a full range of birth control means. From the above article: "Types of prescription birth control available through the health centers include contraceptive pills, patches or injections, as well as the morning-after pill. Diaphragms and IUDs are not usually prescribed, [Lisa Belanger, a nurse practitioner who oversees the city's student health centers] said.

Now here's the kicker: as per Maine laws, children have a right to seek confidential health care which means that the clinic is prohibited from telling the parents about any treatment the children receive. They encourage the children to tell their parents, but they cannot force the children to and the clinic cannot disclose it.

For starters, I am not opposed to the clinic making available condoms. At least in this matter, I am a realist and know that thanks to parents who are derelict in their responsibility to sexually educate their children and our grossly sexualized society, there are children of those ages who may choose to experiment sexually. Condoms are a barrier device and in addition to providing contraceptive measures, also protect against sexually transmitted diseases. None of the now prescribe-able birth control measures protect against STDs. So strike one against them.

Secondly, there are the potential health hazards. Increased risks of cervical cancer, breast cancer, and lethal blood clots are all hazards. One 1997 study found that women who had previously used oral contraceptives were 40% more likely to have Lupus. An increased incidence rate of all auto-immune diseases was found among pill users. On top of that, hormonal contraceptives can increase moodiness. With suicide being the third leading cause of death among young Americans and rates for suicide among 10-14 year old girls (exactly the age range we are talking about) up 76% from previous rates and teenage girl suicides up in gerneral (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/06/health/main3239837.shtml), do we need to potentially add to the problem with mood altering contraceptives. That is in addition to the increased likelihood of depression in teenage girls who are sexually active (more than three times as likely according to http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/cda0304.cfm).

With the exception of the diaphragm, which isn't even a commonly prescribed measure, all of those are hormone changing agents and in the case of some IUDs (intra-uterine devices: a device that is inserted into the uterine that do several things including plugging the fallopian tubes so that sperm cannot enter and fertilize the egg) they stop the menstrual cycle completely and the recipient no longer has periods! Recently, some oral contraceptives have accomplished the same thing of eliminating periods altogether. I am a bit out of my league in discussing the emotional and societal right of passage associated with menarche, the stabilizing of the menstrual period, and how learning to handle the God given gift of reproduction impacts a young teen girl, but I will venture a guess that taking a pill that stops all of that when it has barely started may have some long term implications on a psycho-emotional level.

Another risk of hormonal contraceptives is the common side effect of weight gain. Take a look at these statistics from the 2005 CDC Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System:

• Nationwide, 12.3% of high school students had gone without eating for 24 hours or more to lose weight or to keep from gaining weight during the last 30 days.
• During the last 30 days, 6.3% of students nationwide had taken diet pills, powders, or liquids without a doctor’s advice to lose weight or to keep from gaining weight.
• Nationwide, 4.5% of students had vomited or taken laxatives to lose weight or to keep from gaining weight during the last 30 days. Overall the prevalence of having vomited or taken laxatives to lose weight or to keep from gaining weight was higher among female (6.2%) than male (2.8%) students.
  

And yet, for some reason, a contraceptive that increases these girls' weight is supposed to be good for them?

I guess the worst part of all this is the removal of the parents from the scenario. Suddenly, an 11 year old is expected to be mature enough to make these decisions on her own and deal with the ensuing consequences with no support from her parents. She is supposed to have the foresight, wisdom, and clarity of thought necessary to make what would be a decision that will have effects that echo for decades of if not her entire life.

But, after all, who are we to tell our kids anything or to teach them anything. There is a quote attributed to Theodore Roosevelt that goes: "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." In today's society, this is laughed at and some people thoroughly disagree with it questioning why we as parents have any right to teach our children what is right or wrong.

One such man is Presidential hopeful John Edwards. Courtesy of The Boston Globe article Don't leave educating our children to the government:

When the party's presidential candidates debated at Dartmouth College recently, they were asked about a controversial incident in Lexington, Mass., where a second-grade teacher, to the dismay of several parents, had read her young students a story celebrating same-sex marriage. Were the candidates "comfortable" with that?

"'Yes, absolutely,' former senator John Edwards promptly replied. 'I want my children . . . to be exposed to all the information . . . even in second grade . . . because I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children. . . . I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right.'"

Sadly, Mr. Edwards, it is looking like the option of teaching our kids and helping to guide them is being legislated right out of parents' hands. I recognize why the law prohibiting clinics from disclosing information to parents exists. It is to protect that minority of children whose parents are abusive or neglectful from retaliating against them should the child seek treatment for an abuse injury or turn to an adult for help with a medical problem that, for whatever reason, they cannot turn to their parents for. But instead of penalizing all parents and leaving them in the dark, couldn't a way be devised to only penalize the bad ones? An example from off the top of my head, if the child feels that their parents will be abusive or retaliate against them, they can opt to have it kept confidential and then turn the case over to a social worker for follow up.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know that Maine laws and the laws in so many other states make a blanket abridgment all parents' rights are not.

Thoughts?

***Update: Everything I just talked about I just found more support for in an article indicating that STDs infections are way up in California. Two quick quotes.

According to a study published last month in the Californian Journal of Health Promotion, there were 1.1 million new cases of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among young Californians in 2005, the California Catholic reports. If the study is accurate, diseases such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, HPV, and HIV now infect almost one out of four Californians in the 15-24 age group.

Along with the increase in sexually transmitted infections, there has also been a striking increase in the suicide rates among young people. UCLA psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossman has argued that promiscuity is the root cause of much depression. She believes the promiscuity-depression-suicide link is being ignored by doctors who fail to caution students about the dangers of the "hook-up" culture.

You can read the rest at http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10728