In a previous post, I commented, perhaps a bit archly, upon the recent decision of the Portland, ME school board to give birth-control pills to young children without parental notification. While it is easy enough (and fun!) simply to jeer and scoff, now that I’ve got that out of the way I suppose we should address the possibility that, however remote it may seem, there was some rational process, some explicable motus mentis, behind the school-system’s decision.
The idea behind the policy, I have to imagine, is that there are some girls who are so rudderless, and so bereft of good parenting, that they need contraceptives at age 11 — with the alternative being that they will likely become pregnant. This is a sorrowful state of affairs, but I think that to make an end run around parental notification and consent is letting the “edge cases” push societal norms too far. Parents of minor children have a fundamental obligation to care for them, and so have a corresponding interest in being informed as to their pharmaceutical treatment, and to whether they are sexually active — an interest that the school’s program wilfully ignores. This blurs the important distinction between minority and majority, and I don’t think such an erosive policy is in society’s interest, or even legally coherent. (I feel the same way about trying juveniles “as adults”.) If we want to lower the age of majority, that’s another matter, but if we are going to have such laws, let’s respect them.
Granted, there are reasonable limits to parental authority. The law allows a great deal of parental sovereignty, but does impose restrictions, generally as prohibitions: you can’t beat your kids, you can’t keep them chained to the radiator, you can’t have sex with them, and so forth. But I think parents ought to be able to expect, at the very least, that they shall be informed about medical services being provided by the state for their children. Whether they should have a legal right to deny such treatment is a much more complex matter.
If I ran the world, I would probably add another item to the list of things we prohibit parents from doing to their kids: that you can’t stuff their innocent and defenseless minds full of religious claptrap.
But I don’t, so there you are.
10 Comments
You can’t chain your kid to the radiator? Geez, is my face red….
OK, I’ll bite. How would you respond to the following statement by the director of Portland’s director of Health and Human Services?
“These kids are far too young to be sexually active,” Mr. Gardner said. “You can’t argue that any differently. But there is a small group of kids, and thankfully it’s a small group, who are reporting that they are sexually active, and we need to do all we can to protect them.”
Maybe it’s my louche sensibilities, but I don’t see anything horrific about making birth control available to kids who might need it. Also, you may be wrong on the facts: according to a NYT article yesterday, kids need to get both written parental permission and a waiver to get birth control pills. The lack of birth control isn’t stopping pre-pubescents from screwing: what is so awful about giving them birth control?
First of all, the story I read quoted a local school official as saying that all the parent would sign was a permission slip to use the health center, and that a “savvy” kid could get the pills without her parents knowing.
Yes, those are some pretty louche sensibilities. The point is that an eleven-year-old girl should not be out there screwing guys. Simply saying “oh well, nothing anyone can do, let’s just give her the pill” is giving up on her, and it amounts to to tacit approbation.
It’s what folks in the addiction-counseling racket call being an “enabler”.
“We can’t stop the kid from stealing cars, so let’s buy him a GPS system so he doesn’t get lost.”
“The kids are going to be huffing paint thinner anyway, so let’s keep some helmets handy by the school parking lot so they don’t hurt themselves when they pass out.”
It’s just the wrong attitude. It’s weak.
Well, like third trimester abortions, euthanasia, parental notification, and all sorts of other contentious issues, this is something which is not reducible to logical argument.
My view is that the state has no legitimate role in discouraging kids from having sex, but the state does have a role in public health issues. This is not equivalent to kids stealing cars or sniffing paint thinner. If sex raises its ugly head (no pun intended) for pre-pubescents, we can moan and groan all we want that they are too young to make the beast with two backs, but I believe that there is nothing wrong with making sure that things don’t get a whole lot worse with a pregnancy. If they are going to have sex, better to equip them with knowledge and birth control than to give them a scarlet letter.
Why is it a “public health issue” if an eleven-year-old girl gets pregnant, but not if her life (and arguably her mental health, in which the state should also take an interest if it is so concerned about health issues) is so off the rails that she is engaging in such behavior in the first place?
OK stealing cars, maybe not — but I don’t think that the inahlant analogy was a bad one at all: “Oh, we mustn’t interfere with the child’s behavior — heaven forbid that we might be seen as moralizing, or puritanical about sex — let’s just try to ameliorate the consequences a bit.”
We aren’t talking about a “scarlet letter” here; the point isn’t moral finger-wagging. Such a kid needs help, not a nod-and-a-wink and a band-aid. If I were that girl, grown up, and looking back from the therapist’s couch, I’d say “What the hell were you guys thinking???”
Considering that I knew you when you were eleven, I won’t embarrass you in front of your readership, except to gently remark that your views on the subject have changed over the years.
It’s all about the role of the state. The state has no legitimate role in promoting abstinence. It does have a legitimate role in providing for public health. Yes, the child should not be engaging in sex at eleven. (Let us not forget the verse: when roses are red / they’re ready for plucking / when girls are sixteen….) However, it is not the job of the state to determine the age at which kids should start having sex. It is the job of the state to provide for public health, which encompasses child pregnancies. The state has a legitimate role in doing what it can to make sure that anyone who watches Hannah Montana or The Suite Life of Zack and Cody (you would know these shows if you, like me, have an eleven year old) does not procreate.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, and I will grant that the ickiness factor is very high. However, in my judgment, the HHS people in Portland made the right call.
Well, Peter, indeed you seem to be doing your best to demonstrate that this is resistant to logical argument.
I would say that this goes far beyond moralizing about abstinence; I think it is quite reasonable to suggest that if the state is so concerned about children’s mental and physical health, they might have some reservations about abetting an eleven-year-old’s sexual activity. You are also skipping over the fact that a parent of a minor child has interests, inherent in the very concept of minority and guardianship, that are being circumvented here. If an eleven-year old girl simply cannot be prevented from engaging in sex (which itself seems rather startling), then at the very least it should be the parent’s responsibility to provide contraception – and if they won’t, then it could reasonably be argued that they have abrogated their parental duties altogether, and the child’s care should become a matter for the family courts. This is not what schools are for.
And of course, it is indeed the “job” of the state to determine the age at which children can have sex; it’s written into law as the “age of consent”.
Finally, it would be a pretty sorry state of affairs if my outlook on life had not changed since I was eleven!
I don’t think that providing contraception is abetting sexual activity. Apparently a small number of kids have sex anyway, with or without contraception. Better that they have birth control than not.
If the parents choose not to make contraception available to their kids, then they need not sign the waiver and consent form.
Your preference is to have kids get pregnant because they are unable to get birth control?
Of course that’s abetting sexual activity. For the school to give contraceptives to an eleven-year-old girl is a tacit acknowledgement that nobody is about to make her stop. That’s a significant message.
But we’re just talking past each other here; we simply disagree. You may have the last word, if you like.
I appreciate the offer of the last word — it would be the following excerpt from yesterday’s slate.com:
“Parents are debating schools’ provision of prescription birth control to girls aged 11 to 13. Middle schools in Baltimore are doing it; Portland, Maine, is now joining them. The Maine GOP and the local bishop are pressing the Portland school board to reverse itself. Arguments against it: 1) It violates parental rights. 2) It encourages premature sex. 3) Sex with a 13-year-old isn’t just wrong; it’s illegal. Arguments for it: 1) Middle schoolers are getting pregnant, so let’s face the reality that some are having sex. 2) The schools’ job is to protect girls so they can finish their education. 3) Providing the pills doesn’t cause more sex. 4) We won’t give them to prepubescent kids. 5) We’ll report illegal underage sex. 6) Parents still have control, since kids can’t use the clinics without a waiver. Human Nature’s view: The average age of puberty has already fallen from high school to middle school, so wake up and smell the teen spirit. (Would you sign the waiver? I would.)”
My only point here is that, unlike our gracious host, I believe that this is a difficult question which is not a no-brainer in any sense. In my view, the reasons to provide birth control outweight the reasons against it, although it is by no means an easy or clear-cut decision to make. As queasy as I am to advocate making birth control available to eleven year olds, I think the pro side has greater weight than the con side. Not by a lot: but by enough to make a difference.