• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC Schools Give Out Morning-After Pills To Students Without Telling Parents

The real hypocrisy, is that many schools have drug free policies,
A student can be suspended for bringing an aspirin to school, even with a note.

That's hardly hypocrisy. The idea is that the school doctor is more qualified to administer medications to the student than the student is to self medicate. I mean, have you ever gone through any of those online diagnosis threads where everyone is contributing to the discussion and there isn't one actual doctor giving his input? It's a Mount Everest of stupid, and those are adults.
 
That's hardly hypocrisy. The idea is that the school doctor is more qualified to administer medications to the student than the student is to self medicate. I mean, have you ever gone through any of those online diagnosis threads where everyone is contributing to the discussion and there isn't one actual doctor giving his input? It's a Mount Everest of stupid, and those are adults.

What school has a school doctor? There are plenty of birth control options the school could be providing that doesn't involve providing a controlled substance. It's not like they should provide nicoderm patches to reduce teen smoking either since there are other options.
 
If my daughter's publicly funded school ever handed out morning after pills, I would be the first to suggest litigation.

which you would lose
because the school issued notification to the parent(s)
allowing them to opt out of such program for their own children
that you failed to respond declining the availability of meds would undermine any case you would choose to file
 
Plan B does not require a prescription and is sold from BEHIND the counter by the Pharmacist. There are no tests performed, I don't know why the Pharmacist has to dispense them but thats how it was in 2006 anyway. I lived with a "call-girl" and if the clients condom broke, she would buy a Plan B the next morning. I think there were some side effects like feeling crappy.

They sold for $25 so NYC is spending quite a bit on this. On the other hand, little Christina won't get preggers - that's probably a good thing.

Don't you have to still be 18 to get it at the pharmacy?
 
If the parents are notified, that might discourage the use of the pill. Then, it's likely to get to a choice of an abortion or a 15 year old mother.

It's a difficult call really.

How about the parent who is understanding and would, with her daughter, choose to allow use of the pill? They still want to know what is up with the daughter and what medication she is taking. The school should not be stepping in and deciding what the parent should and should not know. No matter how backwards you think some parents are in their views about sex it is not for the school make broad judgements about it. Get all parents involved and get specific permission from them to have their kids enrolled in the program or not.
 
How about the parent who is understanding and would, with her daughter, choose to allow use of the pill? They still want to know what is up with the daughter and what medication she is taking. The school should not be stepping in and deciding what the parent should and should not know. No matter how backwards you think some parents are in their views about sex it is not for the school make broad judgements about it. Get all parents involved and get specific permission from them to have their kids enrolled in the program or not.

and every parent was notified of their opportunity to decline their daughter's participation in the program
 
What school has a school doctor? There are plenty of birth control options the school could be providing that doesn't involve providing a controlled substance. It's not like they should provide nicoderm patches to reduce teen smoking either since there are other options.

School nurse. My bad.
 
School nurse. My bad.

No problem. But nurses (RN, LPN, APN, etc.) are not able to prescribe any controlled medication so why would we want them prescribing this one unless to further a specific agenda? My issue is with the distribution of medication without parental consent
 
No problem. But nurses (RN, LPN, APN, etc.) are not able to prescribe any controlled medication so why would we want them prescribing this one unless to further a specific agenda? My issue is with the distribution of medication without parental consent

I'm largely in agreement, actually. The only part I'm uncomfortable with is inclusion of "agendas" into the discussion. I think this issue can be settled rationally, but if it becomes about left vs. right then any hope of finding a rational solution will be toast. For example, if someone's opinion of this story was influenced, in some odd way, by their opinion of abortion, then all discussion would be pointless.
 
Last edited:
and every parent was notified of their opportunity to decline their daughter's participation in the program

Weren't there complaints about notification and confirmation. It is one thing to send out a notice for approval by a parent and another thing to send out a notice basically saying we intend to give your child birth control unless you tell us otherwise. Don't know the details but just saying.
 
Weren't there complaints about notification and confirmation. It is one thing to send out a notice for approval by a parent and another thing to send out a notice basically saying we intend to give your child birth control unless you tell us otherwise. Don't know the details but just saying.

What's the difference between the two?
 
Weren't there complaints about notification and confirmation. It is one thing to send out a notice for approval by a parent and another thing to send out a notice basically saying we intend to give your child birth control unless you tell us otherwise. Don't know the details but just saying.

what more does a parent need other than notification that they can opt out of the program on behalf of their daughter
if they fail to do so, then they have opted for their daughter to participate in the program
 
I'm largely in agreement, actually. The only part I'm uncomfortable with is inclusion of "agendas" into the discussion. I think this issue can be settled rationally, but if it becomes about left vs. right then any hope of finding a rational solution will be toast. For example, if someone's opinion of this story was influenced, in some odd way, by their opinion of abortion, then all discussion would be pointless.

Agreed. I can understand the school wanting to help keep students in school, but school is not the parent and only in extreme circumstances should government take on the roll. The agenda folks typically either are against abortion and view the morning after pill as a form of it or they don't trust the parents to make what they consider the proper decision so they want the decision taken away from the parents.
 
what more does a parent need other than notification that they can opt out of the program on behalf of their daughter
if they fail to do so, then they have opted for their daughter to participate in the program

This is the same trick credit card and other companies do to get people to "try out" a service for free and all they have to do is cancel by a certain date otherwise you start getting charged for it. And notices get lost in the mail, misplaced and otherwise go unread. Something this serious needs positive confirmation from the parent. What a parent needs is a letter asking if their child can be included. You don't get to make this decision for the parent.
 
Kids with actual parenting probably aren't going to need that pill anyway? Either way, those that get the pill aren't going to be pregnant. Less teenage (potential Welfare) moms is a bad thing?
 
This is the same trick credit card and other companies do to get people to "try out" a service for free and all they have to do is cancel by a certain date otherwise you start getting charged for it.
it is a foolish "customer" who would pay fees which he did not authorize
yes, some companies prey on stupid people
but that has no application in this instance. if the student has no need for meds then they will not receive them

And notices get lost in the mail,
quite rare. and where the school can show that it sent the letter to the address provided by the parent(a) as the parent(s) address, that school has satisfied it requirement of notification

... misplaced and otherwise go unread.
this is the reason for a requirement to opt out. those indifferent, irresponsible parents who cannot bother to keep track of, or even read their mail from the schools, are more likely to be the ones to have daughters who will need these meds

Something this serious needs positive confirmation from the parent.
no it doesn't. the parents will have received notification. they will have received notice about what they must do to prevent their daughters from receiving school dispensed meds. they either act on those instructions to opt out or they have agreed that their daughter is eligible to receive the meds as needed

What a parent needs is a letter asking if their child can be included. You don't get to make this decision for the parent.
the parent does get to make the decision. they can decide to opt out - by sending the requisite notice - or by doing nothing they opt in. either way, the parent makes the decision
 
I don't know what the pharmacy requires. 18 sounds right. My "lady of the night" was 27 so it wasn't an issue in my only personal experience.

My personal sense of it is conflicted. Of course the parents should know but OTOH if the parents are going to be told, a young person might be scared to act promptly and thus get pregnant which starts involving the decision to forcibly end a pregnancy or give the world another unwanted child with an immature mother.

Which is the lesser evil?

I slightly favor the schools position but..........






How about the parent who is understanding and would, with her daughter, choose to allow use of the pill? They still want to know what is up with the daughter and what medication she is taking. The school should not be stepping in and deciding what the parent should and should not know. No matter how backwards you think some parents are in their views about sex it is not for the school make broad judgements about it. Get all parents involved and get specific permission from them to have their kids enrolled in the program or not.
 
what more does a parent need other than notification that they can opt out of the program on behalf of their daughter
if they fail to do so, then they have opted for their daughter to participate in the program

So, when a rule like this applies to a union, you're against it, but when the same concept applies to anyone else, you're for it.


Gotcha.
 
If children are required by law to attend school from 8am-3pm then not giving them access to basic medication is negligent.

No, it's not. Contrary to your opinion most children don't need medication all day. In fact, in some states, schools are forbidden by law to dispense any medication. They are not hospitals, their personnel aren't medical personnel, they are there to teach, not medicate.
 
No, it's not. Contrary to your opinion most children don't need medication all day. In fact, in some states, schools are forbidden by law to dispense any medication. They are not hospitals, their personnel aren't medical personnel, they are there to teach, not medicate.

What if the students need medication?
 
So, when a rule like this applies to a union, you're against it, but when the same concept applies to anyone else, you're for it.


Gotcha.
wrong again
50% plus one signs a form agreeing to union representation or to end union representation, that simple majority wins
failing to respond means you agree to what is proposed without opposition

as another example, this circumstance happens all the time in union shops. management issues a change of condition of employment. seldom does it even say to the union "unless you tender a counter proposal within 14 calendar days* this change takes effect", which is what the letter to the parent of female students effectively said. the union must recognize that management is imposing a change of conditions and must then respond with a counter proposal, or allow the proposed change to be adopted without further challenge. that happens when the union does nothing ... when the union fails to respond, just like the parent who fails to respond
so, again, you are exhibiting your ignorance about the ways unions operate



* this provision is from my union's contract; it will differ by contract
 
What if the students need medication?

The school doesn't dispense it, period. If the child is on precsribed medication, the school may administer it per the doctor's orders if they are comfortable with that and if they have time, otherwise, if the child needs medical care or is sick, they shouldn't be at school in the first place.
 
I see a rough road ahead for this ruling. Assisted murder charges (even though it isn't, the pill will not terminate a pregnancy, it prevents zygote attachment), but still arguable in court. Public school over riding parental legal decisions (for students who are not old enough to sign a legally binding contract) could lead to the argument that the state is responsible for all financial requirements applicable to raising the child to legal age, religious discrimination suits, not to mention media battles. As in everything else political, it's not about winning the case as much as it is destroying the person in the spotlight. And if that ends up being those in politics they will fold like the spineless bastards they are.

My opinion : I have no problem with the use of the day after pill as long as the decision is left to the legal guardians. If the state gets in the way of that they are making themselves de facto guardians and should then be responsible for all financial needs of the child until they are 18.
 
it is a foolish "customer" who would pay fees which he did not authorize
yes, some companies prey on stupid people
but that has no application in this instance. if the student has no need for meds then they will not receive them


quite rare. and where the school can show that it sent the letter to the address provided by the parent(a) as the parent(s) address, that school has satisfied it requirement of notification


this is the reason for a requirement to opt out. those indifferent, irresponsible parents who cannot bother to keep track of, or even read their mail from the schools, are more likely to be the ones to have daughters who will need these meds


no it doesn't. the parents will have received notification. they will have received notice about what they must do to prevent their daughters from receiving school dispensed meds. they either act on those instructions to opt out or they have agreed that their daughter is eligible to receive the meds as needed


the parent does get to make the decision. they can decide to opt out - by sending the requisite notice - or by doing nothing they opt in. either way, the parent makes the decision

This is nothing a parent could reasonable expect to be part of schooling for effing sakes. You know, education. Dispensing medication and may I add medication that is not required for an emergency or an existing diganosed medical condition and to a minor and for something that may be against the parents express wishes. This is wrong on many levels. An opt out letter is ridiculous in this case It is not like an opt out letter for permission for a field trip to the local park.
 
This is nothing a parent could reasonable expect to be part of schooling for effing sakes. You know, education. Dispensing medication and may I add medication that is not required for an emergency or an existing diganosed medical condition and to a minor and for something that may be against the parents express wishes. This is wrong on many levels. An opt out letter is ridiculous in this case It is not like an opt out letter for permission for a field trip to the local park.

it is exactly like an opt out letter where the parents tell the school not to allow their daughter to participate in a field trip
the parents have notice of the school's intent. they have a means to opt out of the school's process
 
Back
Top Bottom