babble » blogs » Strollerderby
Strollerderby
Challenging Other Parents’ Right to OK Birth Control in School
At first glance, the fight in Revere, Mass. sounds like a typical battle over kids’ access to birth control. Except the parents who are trying to get contraception out of their kids’ schools aren’t fighting an in loco parentis decision by the school district.
Every parent in Revere has the right to say “yay” or “nay” to their kid being dosed birth control by the school. And one group of parents is fighting to take away other parents’ rights to OK their kids’ access to contraception.
The Boston Globe reported over the weekend on a push to get the fight against contraception in the Revere schools onto the ballot. The parents who are seeking signatures for a referendum believe no birth control should be given out in a school district.
But here’s the rub: the school district’s current rules don’t simply allow access to birth control. According to the Globe: “Revere High School students who have parental approval can receive free condoms and prescriptions for birth control pills. Other contraception methods available to students in clude a Depo Provera shot, which protects against pregnancy for up to 14 weeks, and the Plan B, or morning-after, pill.”
Revere is home to one of fifty school-based health care centers in the state, a place where kids can access primary care at the school . . . but again, the school notes it is all done with the permission of the parents.
The program itself began in part as a response to the highly publicized and highly controversial Gloucester teen pregnancy pact, and news that certain parts of the state (including the area around Revere) saw a significant jump in the number of pregnant teens.
Not surprisingly, the people fighting the program aren’t fighting it on grounds that their kids might have access to contraception (they wouldn’t sign the permission slips). They’re fighting it on grounds that NO child should have access.
The Globe reports one Catholic priest has advocated more than two thousand of his parishioners sign the petition and vote no for contraceptives in schools. But he talks out of both sides of his mouth, telling the Globe on one hand that condoms don’t always work . . . and besides, they ruin the pleasure of sex (the irony of a man mandated by his faith NOT to have sex talking about the loss of pleasure is high . . . especially when you throw in the very Catholic belief that sex is not for pleasure but for procreation).
Need I mention the separation of church and state here?
But the bigger issue: if you retain the right over what your kids are doing (whether parents have rights over their children’s sexual behavior is another issue) what does it matter what OTHER parents decide about their kids and sex?
More in school/appropriate for kids debates:
Brooklyn Library Censors Hide Racist Kids Book
School Says No More Islam Is Of the Devil Shirts
U.N. Wants to Teach 5-Year-Olds About Masturbation
Go Back To Strollerderby
0 Comments
Andrea commented on Sep 07 09 at 4:15 pmThis post is slightly disturbing, well, not the post, but the political battle it is about. Taking away my right to control my child’s healthcare is pretty bold! And while I agree with your point about the Catholic priest and the nonsense he is spouting, I feel compelled to point out that you did make an error about the Catholic Church’s belief on the purpose(s) of sex. Officially, sex should be BOTH Procreative (thus no birth control) AND Unitive (to further the intimacy of the (married) partners). The Church sanctions any intimate activity that both partners find acceptable and which furthers their intimacy. Now, that’s not to say that their position isn’t still pretty backwards re: birth control, etc, but if we are going to comment on how absurd the representatives of this particular institution are, I think it’s neccessary to at least be accurate about the underlying belief.
But still, REALLY absurd!
Mistress_Scorpio commented on Sep 07 09 at 4:43 pmIt just goes to show the debate isn’t about freedom, religious or otherwise. It’s about control.
jenny tries too hard commented on Sep 07 09 at 6:29 pmI don’t know…if there is only a blanket permission slip, I would feel a little weird about it myself. A “Susie has my permission to be injected with/prescribed/handed whatever birth control she wants” seems like a parent ducking his/her responsibility to make an informed decision with the teen and the provider. It also seems, frankly, like something just begging for teens to practice the time-honored practice of permission-slip forgery. Besides that, where is the funding coming from? I can see parents feeling a little miffed about funding a health center they are not using while other educational needs go unmet. Why can’t the school refer students–and their parents–to a family planning clinic in the neighborhood?
jenny tries too hard commented on Sep 07 09 at 6:33 pmOh, and I just don’t see how this is taking away anyone’s right to obtain contraception for their kid. It may be making it somewhat less convenient, maybe a little more costly, but, really, is it the school’s place to make contraception convenient and cheap?
Trace commented on Sep 07 09 at 7:54 pmExcellent idea, as long as parents and girls are informed of all the damange that Depo-Provera possibly does to a woman. Let’s talk about osteoporosis, and excessive weight gain, and all the other freakish things that Depo-Provera does… I am sure all the popular girls will do it, just so they can say “I’m on birth control”…. oh yah, btw I got pregnant on Depo…. scary, right?
jeannesager commented on Sep 07 09 at 9:58 pmAndrea – I don’t disagree that the Catholic Church thinks the intimacy of marriage is important, however the paramount reason for sex according to my Catholic upbringing was procreation NOT pleasure.
As you said – that’s their reasoning behind the “no birth control” edict. But I’ve also read (and was taught to believe) that the Catholic church says putting sexual pleasure, even in the context of a marriage, above procreation in sex is “harmful” to the marriage (http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp). That’s where I was coming from with my statements above.
Statements like this really make clear that if you’re having sex for the fun of it, you’re sinning in God’s eyes (according to the Catholic church): “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame.” (That’s from Augustine, by the way).
Lula commented on Sep 08 09 at 12:30 amMaking contraceptives available through schools is a good way to increase youth access. I haven’t heard anyone singing the happy-happy-joy-joy song recently re: teenage pregnancy, so I’d think people who want to see a reduction in high-school pregnancies would support contraception in school clinics. I’m not a huge Depo fan myself, but there are other options available – and for some girls and women, the privacy afforded by Depo (if you’ve got snoopy parents who will search your stuff for evidence of BCPs and barrier methods) may be a reasonable trade-off. Gotta do the best you can with what you have to work with, after all.
I for one am also not worried about students forging contraception permission slips. In fact, I *hope* students will help each other out that way, if a sexually-active student’s parents are not willing to sign a permission slip themselves to help their child not become pregnant while they’re in high school. Bad for the school if forgeries get found out, but again with the prioritization of self-protection in the face of parental denial or stonewalling.
Cat commented on Sep 08 09 at 2:50 amNo one has ever found an effect way to stop teenagers from having sex. The more control you try to exert over them the greater the resistance. I love hearing people I grew up with talk about their kids and sex…like I don’t remember how much they were fooling around back in the day!! If your parents couldn’t stop you what makes you think you can stop your kids?!? It’s an interesting mix of arrogance and desperation.
Kids should be taught about STDs and how to prevent from getting them. If you’re preventing STDs, chances are you’re also preventing pregnancy. Prevent a pregnancy and you’re more than likely preventing an abortion. Wow, I just made a lot of pro-lifers happy.
As if it were that simple, I guess it all depends on priorities. Are we trying to do what’s best for teens or are we just trying to control them? I’d rather see my kids alive, healthy and happy than proving how inventive and sly they are by going around me to get what they what. How do I know that’s what will happen? Because that’s what I did when I was a kid. I didn’t have to outsmart my parents all the time just a few times…and they still don’t know about a few things to this day.
GP commented on Sep 08 09 at 8:00 amThe schools these days can barely educate kids…why do they need to be giving birth control and condoms out? Technically, I wouldn’t oppose this, as I am pro birth control and sex ed and such, but still, if you want your kid to have this, why not just give it to them yourself? Why hand over this delicate and private matter to the school? Just sayin…
jenny tries too hard commented on Sep 08 09 at 8:16 amLula–the privacy afforded by Depo is the point. If a parent does not want his or her minor child to have an injection of hormones the child should not have it. Period. If high school students are mature enough to decide for themselves whether or not to use a prescription with serious risks, why is the parent legally responsible for that child’s health? If my daughter was given Depo at school and suffered a complication, who would be responsible for getting her to the hospital and caring for her? Not the school.
Mary commented on Sep 08 09 at 8:43 amSt. Augustine, in that statement, is merely telling the couple not to use birth control. He isn’t saying that they cannot enjoy the act. Andrea was right about the two ends of sex according to the Catholic Church. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be enjoyable at the same time. I really don’t think it’s in good taste to be continually throwing the Catholic Church under the bus.
jeannesager commented on Sep 08 09 at 9:33 amMary – it’s not throwing the Catholic church under the bus to report on something the Catholic church is fighting. It’s a Catholic parish behind this – period.
Lula commented on Sep 08 09 at 11:16 amJenny: See Cat’s post re: parental desire to control their child vs. the need for sexually-active teens to protect themselves against pregnancy and STIs with or without parental permission. A parent may not want their child to be injected with hormones, but the parent’s opinion isn’t the only one at play anymore by the time the “child” is in high school and making decisions about contraception. Ideally, parents would do everything in their power to educate their children about available forms of contraception and the pros/cons of various methods. Ideally, parents would also take their sexually-active high-schoolers to the clinic themselves in order to encourage responsible sexual behavior and reduce the risk of an unwanted pregnancy or an infection. But when parents fail to provide that education and support, what’s a teenager supposed to do? If a teenager is unlucky enough to be living with parents or guardians who would punish them for doing something as proactive and responsible as using contraception (or freak out with the vapors, or apply heavy guilt-tripping, or etc.), then obviously the teen is doing the right thing by prioritizing their health through using a very private method of birth control. Since parents will also be the ones taking their child or child’s girlfriend to the clinic for an abortion, prenatal & birth care, and/or STI screening and treatment if protection ISN’T used, I don’t see much difference in the risk factors.
jenny tries too hard commented on Sep 08 09 at 12:58 pmRidiculous. First of all, the post frames it as though the school is presenting birth control only for kids whose parents consent while evil mouth-breathing Catholics want to take it away. Andrea stated rightly that taking away a parent’s right to control his or her child’s health care is pretty bold. Providing birth control to a minor whose parents don’t approve is denying the parent his/her right to control that child’s healthcare. You may disagree, loudly if you like, with the decision of a parent to “stonewall” their child’s use of birth control, but the right to make that decision still belongs to the parent. Legally a teenager cannot be forced to honor a contract or a lease, because the law determines them to be too immature to make informed decisions. And yet you think if they have the wherewithal to forge their parent’s signature and say “hmmm…better get the shot, cuz my parents could find the condoms and then they might make me stop seeing my boyfriend,” they ought to be trusted with making medical decisions that have lifelong consequences? I get that no one can watch his or her teenager all the time and that many teens become sexually active. It would be better if teens waited to have sex, at least till they finshed high school, but I get that raging hormones are a powerful thing. I wouldn’t support taking away big, abundant baskets of condoms (which protect against STIs and prregnancy and pose a phyiscal threat only to people allergic to latex and small, undiscerning birds). In fact, there should be condom dispensers in the restrooms that mysteriously dispense condoms for free. But dispensing prescriptions and injections (when it is not an emergency) behind the backs of parents is blatant usurping of parents rights. Not only that, hiding any medication from her parents and primary physician puts the child’s health at risk. If my daughter takes Plan B, say, and collapses at home, even if her collapse wasn’t related to the Plan B, the doctor I take her to should still know about everything she’s taken in the last 24hours. The doctor cannot effectively treat the patient if he or she does not have accurate info about medications. It can also end up making the child less protected from pregnancy in particular–I know of a girl who got pregnant on bc pills at 17. She had obtained them from a clinic using her sister’s ID and of course stopped using condoms with her boyfriend. She was protected, right? Then she got a bug, her parents took her to the doc for some antibiotics. The doc didn’t know she was on bc, so he didn’t tell her, “By the way, this will interfere with your birth control, so use condoms for the next two weeks.”
jeannesager commented on Sep 08 09 at 1:03 pmJenny – did you read this post at all? This isn’t about a school handing out shots to random kids. It’s about a school that does so only to kids WITH parental permission.
No one is forcing parents to consent to their kids having a Depo shot or being put on the pill. But people – the Catholic church in particular – are trying to remove a parent’s right to say “yup, the school health clinic can dose my kid” by removing it from the school.
There is no usurping of rights if a parent says “yes, my kid can have it.”
It’s actually MORE stringent than a traditional health clinic, where your kid can walk in without your permission and the doctor is federally obligated NOT to tell you what they did or spoke about.
jenny tries too hard commented on Sep 08 09 at 1:13 pmJeanne, I did read it, and my concern was that permission slips would be easy to forge, as I said in my first comment. When Lula responded that she *hoped* teens would help each other by forging signatures, I responded on the scenario we were discussing, that teens would be able to use forged permission slips to obtain Depo and other hormone-based birth control. I maintain that signing a permission slip is a poor substitute for taking your child to a GYN or a family-planning clinc, reading over and discussing birth control, and that yes, permission slips are likely to be forged, resulting in students going around their parents’ wishes and obtaining birth control. Once again, I have no problem with the school handing out condoms and educating students about birth control.
jenny tries too hard commented on Sep 08 09 at 1:16 pmIf any of the articles linked outlined measures taken to prevent forged permission slips from being accepted, I would happily concede that all is well with these clinics.
jeannesager commented on Sep 08 09 at 1:20 pmJenny – again, I’d note that there is no such thing as a permission slip outside a school setting. A 16-year-old with insurance can walk into any clinic in the country that accepts her insurance, tell them she’s sexually active, and they will treat her without her parents knowledge. What’s more, the parents will not have the right to find out what their daughter was treated with, what STDs she might have, etc. under HIPAA. The school clinic actually increase the chances parents will have say in their child’s healthcare, rather than the other way around.
jenny tries too hard commented on Sep 08 09 at 1:37 pmActually, Jeanne, clinics are under no obligation to treat unaccompanied minors in a nonemergent situation, and many do not. Furthermore, her parents would find out about the treatment, or at least the visit to the clinic from looking at their own insurance paperwork, in your scenario. True, the name of the patient might not appear on the paperwork, but come on…”Ok kids, someone went to Dr. Jones on May 3 and CVS pharmacy on May 4. What’s going on?” If the school-based clinics required that a parent be present when the teen obtained birth control, I would be satisfied that they increased the parents having a say in the child’s health and I would applaud it. You still haven’t adressed my concern that it makes it easier (though it is already possible) for teens to obtain hormone-based prescription birth control without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
Bunny commented on Sep 08 09 at 2:04 pmJenny: ultimately, which causes more likely harm to a child – a distant scenario in which they have an allergic reaction to Plan B, or a far more likely scenario in which they get pregnant because they didn’t have easy, free access to birth control, and then have to either endure abortion or nine months of pregnancy and then birth?
Ultimately, the purpose of this is to cause the least potential harm to children. And… if they’re not ready to make their own health decisions, I think you can agree that they’re sure as heck not ready to have babies! The community benefits as well from doing everything possible to arm these kids with information and easy access to birth control – better to put the public funds into birth control than to use far more public funds to feed the babies that result.
jenny tries too hard commented on Sep 08 09 at 2:32 pmBunny, what the post first attempts to argue is that some parents are trying to take away other parents right to obtain contraception. What you and Lula appear to be arguing for is that any sexually active teen have access to hormone-based birth control (again, I have absolutely no problem with condoms condoms condoms in public school) without the risk that her parents might punish her or restrict her. That is simply outrageous. I agree with you that teens shouldn’t have babies. Again, I’m all about the condoms. And condoms. And did I mention….condoms. Condoms are a perfectly reasonable protection against pregnancy, and the ONLY mentioned protection against STIs, and they don’t put anyone’s health at risk or constitute providing an elective medication, with inherent risks, to people too immature to understand what they are taking. Again, the risk of complications or drug interactions with depo, the pill, or plan B may seem distant and slight but it is still a real and avoidable risk. Condoms pose no real threat to anyone (except those allergic to latex, but the chance of living 15 years without finding that out are pretty slim) AND they protect against STIs AND they’re pretty darn cheap to boot. Oh, and they come in lots of puuurdy colors. I have absolutely no problem with using public funds for—what’s my favorite word—-condoms, Free condoms for everyone. Public funds should absolutely be used for sex ed. And public funds from medicaid, not the public school, should be used for hormone-based contraception for parent-accompanied minors and adult women. The reason I say parent-accompanied minors is that contraception is a major medical decision and anyone who is not legally responsible for herself needs an adult in her life to be well-informed on how it will affect her. And if her parents will punish her or deny her, well, there’s always, you know…condoms.
Lula commented on Sep 08 09 at 2:48 pmI myself cannot safely use hormonal contraceptives, and I am about the biggest cheerleader for condoms that you will ever see in both the virtual and the Real worlds. But again, I must point out that I am not the teenager in question who is making their own best-odds decision about what contraceptive method to use — and neither is that teenager’s parent or guardian. Planned Parenthood and other community clinics will prescribe hormonal contraception without parental permission in accordance with state and federal laws protecting the right of unmarried people under the age of 18 to access and use the contraceptive method of their choice. If school clinics require parents to sign permission slips in order to dispense medications of any sort, including hormonal contraceptives, then I strongly suggest that parents who do not want their children using hormonal contraceptives without their permission sign the damn slip already. Hormonal contraceptives do not kill or maim every woman who uses them – they are quite safe for the majority of girls and women. If you want your kid to use contraception and you want to know what kind of contraception they’re using, do everything within your power to facilitate the level of trust necessary for them to go to you when they decide they are ready & in need of some kind of birth control. Then get them to a youth-friendly provider, and compliment them a lot for being smart and mature enough to be realistic and responsible about reducing sex-associated risks.
FWIW, that same “child” who is too immature to be allowed to make their own decisions about birth control is considered mature enough to make their own decision about carrying a pregnancy to term without parental permission in all states. In most states, that same immature teenage “child” is considered capable of agreeing to placing their *own* child for adoption without parental permission. Seems like we only start bellowing about immaturity and protecting youth against their own judgment when it comes to preventing pregnancy or obtaining an abortion. That is messed up.
Lula commented on Sep 08 09 at 3:36 pmIt’s also worth pointing out that male partners are the ones who either do or do not wear a condom (exception for the Reality condom, which I have not found to be a popular contraceptive choice for either teenage or adult women). While it would be wonderful if all boys and men used condoms properly every single time without complaint, women-controlled methods of contraception have the benefit of being, you know, *controlled by the ones who get pregnant*. While it would also be great if all girls and women who have intercourse with males stuck with the “No Glove, No Love” motto, the reality is that many gender-based barriers to condom use get in the way of our perfect Condoms Every Time cheerleading. Until all males have the self-respect and maturity to protect himself and his partner by using a condom properly without whinging, and until all females have the self-respect and maturity to refuse sexual contact with any male who is fool enough to forgo the condom, it’s naive at best to advocate condoms only as the way to prevent teenage pregnancy and infection transmission. Hormonal contraceptives aren’t the only woman-controlled options available, but they are among the most effective and the most popular – esp. with teenage girls.
And as far as potential health risks go, pregnancy and childbirth are known to be far more risky than either contraception or abortion. Again, if we’re talking about teens being too immature to make healthcare decisions without adult involvement & permission, we have to make the decision to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth contingent upon parental permission. Unless you want parents forcing girls to use hormonal contraception or have abortions based on the fact that HBC and abortion are statistically safer for girls than pregnancy and childbirth, we should maybe put that argument to rest and start listening to youth’s own assessment of their reproductive health needs instead.
jenny tries too hard commented on Sep 08 09 at 8:23 pmYeah, I know guys aren’t fond of condoms. But aren’t high school boys hard up enough to just suck it up and wear a damn rubber? They sure seemed to be when I was in high school! I am not proposing that condoms are the *only* way to prevent pregnancy and STIs, but honestly, none of the woman-controlled options do one darn thing to protect against STIs. Surely every parent should do everything he or she can reasonably do to get their child to wait till age 18 or older to have sex, and should do their absolute best to help their teenage children get proper reproductive healthcare. Honestly, I think many teens just wrongly predict how their parents will react to the news that they would like to look into BC. Obviously, some parents, for religious reasons or other reasons would still prevent their children from obtaining birth control. That is STILL their right, even if birth control is statistically safer than pregnancy. Just like it is our right when our children are infants to CHOOSE to formula feed, even though breastfeeding is statistically safer. It is a parent’s right and responsibility to weigh the risks and benefits of vaccinating or not, treating ADD and ADHD with medication or with cognitive therapy (or both) and every other medical issue. Parents who deny their children are of course opting to take the risk that their child becomes pregnant and that they, the parents, will then have to care for their child through an abortion or a pregnancy. And yeah, I get that it seems kind of schizo that a teen can continue a pregnancy, often by leaving the home for a maternity home, against the wishes of her parents, but cannot terminate a pregnancy without her parents’ consent. The issue there, in part at least, is that any ethical physician will not preform any elective surgery on a patient who adamantly expresses that she does not want it. Teens are certainly pressured by parents to have abortions, and some cave and say okay, but the teens who really put up a fight will (hopefully) not have abortions done against their will. As far as adoption placement goes, I wish that minors hoping to place their children for adoption would be given a neutral guardian ad litem to look after both the teen and the baby’s best interest. But currently parents have little say because the new baby is not theirs. They have absolutely no legal claim because they are not the baby’s parents.
jenny tries too hard commented on Sep 08 09 at 8:54 pmAnd to clarify, I know Revere is requiring permission slips (!) and I still maintain that is not sufficient because of the relative ease in forging a parents signature and the fact that the clinic is right on campus. I still also object to money being earmarked for education and being used for elective medicine like birth control.
Lula commented on Sep 08 09 at 10:11 pmThe boys (and possibly the men) you’ve encountered in your life to date are better Condom Dudes than the norm, then. As for female-controlled STI protection: That’s why I support microbicide development, both rectal and vaginal. I agree that condoms are really all we have right now to help sexually-active people avoid picking up and passing STIs, and condoms are simply not enough. Microbicides could even be formulated to allow FOR conception while simultaneously protection against infection, which currently is not an option with condoms. Public health research, how I love you.
WRT clinic funding – if it makes you feel any better, school-based clinics in my state (IL) are funded through the state’s public health $$, not the education $$. I imagine that’s true for most states, but I could be wrong about that.
You and I aren’t going to agree about comprehensive birth control dispensation via school-based clinics, and that’s fine with me. I’m 100% for bringing healthcare to the hard-to-reach client (which includes youth populations), so of course I’m a fan of school-based health clinics that provide contraceptives. I am also pro-legislation that protects minors’ right to access reproductive health services, including contraception, STI screening & treatment, abortion, and prenatal care without parental permission. The need for and right to that protected access is so obvious to me that I honestly don’t understand how anyone can question the benefit of it. Clearly, some folks out there think I and people like me are a menace to society and a threat to the family and all that good stuff because of this belief, but hey! that’s America.
jenny tries too hard commented on Sep 08 09 at 10:28 pmI certainly don’t think you are menace and I think that we can both agree microbicide research should be a top priority….as long as they don’t use stem cells. Kidding! I certainly don’t want to open that can of worms!
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
Joslyn Gray 
Amber Doty 
Julianna Miner 
Monica Bielanko 
Sierra Black 
Meredith Carroll 
Carolyn Castiglia 
Sunny Chanel 
Madeline Holler 
Wendy Michaels 
Rebecca Odes 
Danielle Smith 
Danielle Sullivan 
Katherine Stone 
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.
0