« Abuse of Privilege | Main | The Question to Ask: Is Our Congress Learning? »
For Discussion
This story raises some interesting issues that will no doubt become part of the Maine Senate race between Susan Collins (R-ME) and Democratic challenger Tom Allen.
PORTLAND, Maine — After an outbreak of pregnancies among middle school girls, education officials in this city have decided to allow a school health center to make birth control pills available to girls as young as 11.
King Middle School will become the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available, including birth control pills and patches. Condoms have been available at King's health center since 2000.Students need parental permission to access the school's health center. But treatment is confidential under state law, which allows the students to decide whether to inform their parents about the services they receive.
There are no national figures on how many middle schools provide such services. Most middle schoolers range in age from 11 to 13.
This raises some troubling issues, not the least of which is, what might be the long term health consequences for young females taking the pill? And I also wonder, what is the basis for the apparent belief that the reason why middle school girls get pregnant is a lack of access to sufficient array birth control choices?
What do you think of this?
One last thing--Does anyone else find the phrase, "An outbreak of pregnancies", offensive? The writer here uses the term to imply that pregnancy, if it occurs among a certain age group, is to be perceived as some sort of disease. It seems to me that the writer could have just as easily used the phrase, "A sharp rise in pregnancies". It's both more accurate and less perjoratively offensive.
Let's hear from you folks.
10 Comments
Leave a comment
Not registered? Click on 'Sign-in' above and then select 'Sign up' in the lower right corner. Don't forget to click on the link in the confirmation email that will be sent to your email address.
Aren't kids going into puberty earlier now, with all the hormones in meat etc.? Same reason we have three-legged frogs & so on?
So there needs to be increased close communication between parents, kids & school
&
good, clear sex education for girls & boys both, between parents, church (if applicable) & school
No one is off the hook.
There was an actual increase in pregnancies in middle school age, so apparently there was a problem with communication of information & with having alternative activities.
If it is going to happen, then protection, & I would think sex education would include about STDs.
Some think sex education teaches kids to have sex. I would think that with the onset of puberty & given sufficient time & place, they would be able to figure it out either way.
Why not teach biologically the ramifications of unprotected sex, & the benefits of waiting, if that is best (which should be a consensus decision).
This is something that the school, church & parents should not pawn off on each other - if the problem continues to exist, then someone is not doing their job.
I'll bet this is not the only community with a rash of pregnancies, & there is going to have to be some frank talk somewhere.
I've heard of abstinence rings etc. - but not that such approaches have been shown to work. If kids were taught the effects of sex, drugs etc. rather than just the negatives (or perhaps little information), they might make better decisions, even if young.
I heard on "This American Life" a recent program where a young woman was interviewed who is involved with a program involving sexual education for teens. Different teens and preteens were interviewed about where they got their information, & many times it was from porn.
My mom gave me a book which explained sex when I was only seven years old. I may have been young and it may have been early, but I was already a good reader, and we had already seen sexual activity amongst animals and were asking about it.
By middle school, in South Dakota of all places, we learned at least about menstruation in middle school, and by early high school had sex education at both school and church (all churches in the town cooperated and it was a co-program with the school), and hopefully at home too.
When I have had young guests from Europe, they have comfortably discussed with my husband and I their attitudes about sexuality and sex education.
Here is an article with comparisons between teen pregnancies and STDs, comparing US with several Western European countries.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsest.htm
Now the issue may have to be extrapolated down a little, for middle school vs high school. I really strongly feel that too little information is worse than too much.
Congress failed to override Bush veto of Children's Health bill
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsest.htm
Claims of caring about children and family fall flat in the face of this.
I would think that someone campaigning could point out the hypocrisy.
Plenty of children are born, but what then?
What of precious life?
I agree, nmp. The failure to override the veto today speaks volumes about our priorities.
Or lack thereof.
Sitting in the halls of Congress today and just heard that the Repubs are bragging about "winning" the fight against S-CHIP.
Another nail in the coffin of this government. Unfortunately, I feel that we are all supposed to go over the cliff with them.
Women and children first, no doubt.
On the topic of teen pregnancy: Having raised a few teens, I have to say that I do not think legislation is the way to either prevent or deal with the results of teenage sexual activity. I think that there are many paths to addressing the issue, not the least of which is family therapy on how to talk and listen to each other, which seems to be a challenge to many.
It's all related.
Senator John Kerry today issued the following statement in response to the House of Representatives vote to override President Bush's veto of bipartisan S-CHIP legislation.
"Today, thirteen Roadblock Republicans joined President Bush to deny health care for 10 million of America’s children,” said Kerry. “Thirteen Republicans put President Bush’s ideological agenda first and put health care for poor children last: behind Halliburton and Blackwater, and behind tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans. Blocking health care for children isn’t compassionate or conservative, and it surely isn't wise. This fight is far from over."
I'm putting a longer piece at the Open Thread.
Okay, nmp and Karen, but my questions were less about teen pregnancy and contraception, and more about the issues that this raises for the overall health of these young women, why the board has drawn the conclusion that part of the problem is an insufficient array of contraceptive choices.
Taking the pill has some serious side effects, and it was never approved for contraceptive use on women this young.
Also, in my mind of minds, I also have to wonder about the pill versus condoms. Do they think that these middle school aged young women are being pressured into having sex without their partners using condoms by the well known dislike among male teen for using condoms? Really, the issue in this vote (which was 7-2 btw) was not teen sex OR teen contraception. The issue was the kind of teen contraception.
What concerns me the most is the complete absence of discussion here about safe sex, meaning using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV-Aids, STD's etc.
There is healthrisks with taking the pill. There are health risks to unprotected sex. I guess my view of middle schoolers having sex is that, while I prefer they don't and think they are making a huge mistake, I don't think it's a mistake that they should have to pay for with their lives.
And when the folks around you start whining about "parental consent!! parental consent!!", feel free to remind the that these middle schoolers have to have parental consent to even go to or use the health center in the first place. I fear that one fact has already been lost in the debate.
Also, I have to wonder if these girls are having sex with older boys, maybe fourteen or fifteen year old boys, in which case, it's statutory rape (in my state), and is anyone counseling them about that...
Having spent time in Baltimore, the teen pregnancy capital of America, I can say that, IMO, not much counseling is happening at all.
Many of these middle-schoolers get pregnant so they won't feel alone and unloved. It's truly heart-breaking to hear them even say that.
Not many fathers are around, although the community has created some programs for teen fathers, in case they are willing, and known, and open to it. But mostly I saw 13 and 14 year olds girls in special programs to help them cope with the overwhelming consequences of their somewhat conscious choices to get pregnant and have a baby. And yes, the long term effects of any choices are not great--whether it's the pill, abortion, or giving birth.
As for prophylactics, one program I oversaw was cut when the funder decided to provide condoms for all middle school children in NYC instead. I am not sure that worked out well.
Yes, Casey "an outbreak of pregnancies" is an offensive term because it's judgemental. To be judgemental without presenting any other information, no matter what it's about, is offensive.
October 18, 2007 6:23 PM
Casey Morris said:
"Taking the pill has some serious side effects, and it was never approved for contraceptive use on women this young.
- snip -
"What concerns me the most is the complete absence of discussion here about safe sex, meaning using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV-Aids, STD's etc.
"There are healthrisks with taking the pill. There are health risks to unprotected sex. I guess my view of middle schoolers having sex is that, while I prefer they don't and think they are making a huge mistake, I don't think it's a mistake that they should have to pay for with their lives."
- snip -
>>>>>>>
There are so many issues on this subject that it's really hard to consider them all together. My view on girls as young as 11 needing birth control is that these children need a great deal of information about the risks of sexual activity - ALL the risks. And I think we'd all agree, Casey - that no one should have to pay for such a mistake as unprotected sex, with their life.
I know that children are reaching puberty at a much younger age now. NMP, I hadn't thought about the growth hormones in our food, and that could easily have something to do with it. I feel sick.
When my children were young and asked a question - for example - what are these - holding out an open box of tampons with one hand and a tampon in the other. I gave the answer. The whole answer. About how a woman's body gets ready to have a baby every month, then when there is no baby to grow inside, the baby's room inside the woman has to clean itself out to get ready again next month. The blood inside has to be fresh and clean for a brand new baby to grow, so the old blood drains out. The tampons soak up the blood so the lady's clothes don't get wrecked.
Jeremy was 4 when he asked the question and Trent was 3. I knew they could never take all of this in. They concentrated really hard and were happy with the anser so they went away to play. They kept what they wanted and let the rest float away until another day, years later when there were new questions.
Their preschool teacher was pregnant at the time too so she got way more questions than we mothers did. It prompted this one day, "You know when I was a little tiny seed in your tummy?" "Mmm" "Well, if you would've taken me out and planted me in the garden, I could have been a flower!" He was simply delighted with such a possibility.
This factsheet has clues as to things we might be doing better in America as regards the sexuality of the young.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsest.htm