Opinion discussion: How do you feel about public schools distributing

[Ginevra]

Free c@ndom$ to students through thr nurses office? Two counties in my state already have such a program and now a third county adjascent to mine is adopting this program. I do not have a strongly-held opinion either for or against this practice, but I do find it troubling. I do think it wise to reduce transmission of disease and unintended new humans. It does bother me in the areas of state-as-parent. 

[73349]

Delighted to see a major public health issue addressed through a public facility on an opt-in basis.

It's not like they're putting some in everybody's locker, right? One has to go to the nurse's office to get them. So it's still an opt-in, not an opt-out.

[Bluegoat]

Hmm.  My gut feeling is that it might not make a huge difference.  My main experience with this sort of thing was in a somewhat different setting.  When I was in university, the student safety office also had free condoms which anyone could take.  I used to volunteer at the walkhome service so sometimes I would see people come in a grab some.  Mostly though it wasn't done very seriously - I am sure they were used, at least some of them, but it wasn't a very serious thing to go get them, people often did it when they were having a lark.  I never got the feeling that had the condoms not been available, the people would have been out having unprotected sex.  Not that t convinced people to have sex who otherwise would not have done so.

That being said, there could be a group of kids at the high school who are less able to buy their own and more likely to be pressured into, or be foolish enough, to have sex anyway.  

I really don't see it as a nanny state thing.  To me its a public health issue. I'd much prefer the kids not to have sex, and in fact I am pretty conservative about birth control, but STIs are a worry in that demographic.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, whitehawk said:

Delighted to see a major public health issue addressed through a public facility on an opt-in basis.

It's not like they're putting some in everybody's locker, right? One has to go to the nurse's office to get them. So it's still an opt-in, not an opt-out.

Still feels a bit line-crossy to me. My kid had to have a doctor’s release to get a cough drop or a dose of ibuprophen administered by thr health office. How can they stroll in and be given prophelactics? 

[Bluegoat]

Just now, Quill said:

Still feels a bit line-crossy to me. My kid had to have a doctor’s release to get a cough drop or a dose of ibuprophen administered by thr health office. How can they stroll in and be given prophelactics? 

 

I'd say it seems contradictory rather than line-crossing.  Not being able to get a cough drop, or even ibuprofen, is just stupid.

[Guest]

Quote

really don't see it as a nanny state thing.  To me its a public health issue. I'd much prefer the kids not to have sex, and in fact I am pretty conservative about birth control, but STIs are a worry in that demographic.

The article I read indicated that rates of transmission are increased in this county; hence, the measures. 

[Bluegoat]

Just now, Quill said:

The article I read indicated that rates of transmission are increased in this county; hence, the measures. 

 

The other issue is that they are increasingly antibiotic resistant.

[gardenmom5]

I find it troubling as well.  I am a "wait until legal marriage" person.  that said, I came from a family where sex was anything goes (I won't get into the gory details. I'm an adult, and even more horrified by my mother's behavior.), and my sister had three pregnancies before she was 21 (one miscarriage and two abortions. she had access to BC. she was inconsistent, which is pretty common with teens.  she got married because she was pregnant, and didn't want to have another abortion. she miscarried the next day.)  I imagine things are even worse now.

I think it's a hard line, because so many parents do not example their children waiting, or at least being in a serious relationship first.  too many moms (and dads) are bringing in honey's the parent barely knows and sleeping with them in the same accommodation as their kid.  kids grow up thinking that's love.  (and I believe a contributing factor in the number of kids dying by mom's boyfriend's hand.  it's a cliché for a reason.)

I've known underage teenage girls who DELIBERATLY sought to get pregnant with the plan they'd get welfare.  (so much for the accuracy "teenage girls don't get pregnant on purpose" crowd)

and as one high school counselor said - prom is the big risk.  a big fancy dress dinner and party, and they think it's romantic.

[prairiewindmomma]

We are religiously conservative and I have no problem with the access you describe. It’s a public health issue.

(I am also in the camp that kids should be able to carry their own meds to school.)

[bolt.]

I think it's fantastic.

I very much hope that they are made available in various unsupervised locations where they can be quickly grabbed without feeling noticed.

STDs and unintentional pregnancy are clearly public health issues. Schools are frequently utilized as a point-of-delivery for public health services. I don't see this as a "state-as-parent" situation because the state delivers free condoms to all populations at high risk for STDs and unintentional pregnancy (or at least it should -- it would be within their mandate). The state is not acting as a "guardian" to the "children" of a school, it is acting as a health professional in contact with sexually active people of all ages.

Cough drops and ibuprofen are not related to any public health issue. An individual having a cough or a headache who is unable to gain relief from the discomfort poses no risk to society at large. Therefore those services are not public health services. If a school is providing them at all (ours don't) they are providing them in a way that is merely adjacent to their educational goals. As such, it would obviously be done in cooperation with the parents (and require consent).

Edited January 21, 2019 by bolt.

[AngieW in Texas]

I think it's awesome. You have no idea how many of the kids in my high school are sexually active. I would far rather they be able to get condoms from the nurse than do without. I hope the nurse gives them several and not just one. Being able to get condoms from the nurse is not going to make a student decide to start having sex, but it might prevent a teen pregnancy.

 

[Suzanne in ABQ]

If condoms were a controlled substance, not readily available, then I would feel differently, but they are readily available in any drug store, grocery store, Walmart, or convenience store for just a few bucks.  Young people who are responsible enough to want them, but may not have the cash on hand to go buy them, (ETA: or who don't have transportation to the store), who are willing to go in and face the school nurse to ask for them, should absolutely be able to get them.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Suzanne in ABQ

[historically accurate]

26 minutes ago, Quill said:

Still feels a bit line-crossy to me. My kid had to have a doctor’s release to get a cough drop or a dose of ibuprophen administered by thr health office. How can they stroll in and be given prophelactics? 

I don't know if the two things are contradictory. Your examples are ingested medicine with possible side effects (now, they're pretty safe overall, but they are still drugs). A condom is different. Now, if the pill were available otc, and it was available in the nurse's office, that would be weird if they provided the pill but not an advil. 

I personally have no problem with condoms freely available at school. 

[Amira]

I think it’s far more likely that high schoolers are having unprotected sex because of lack of access to condoms than that they are having no sex because of that lack.  It makes sense to me to make them available. STIs and anyone getting pregnant at the wrong time are things I always want to help avoid.

[HomeAgain]

I'd be very glad to hear of such a program at our schools.

Lack of condoms don't make kids not have s*x.  If I was in high school, I'd need a ride to the store, which meant supervision of purchases, but there are plenty of things high schoolers do without supervision.  I think it's a great thing to understand that and make sure they have the opportunity to be as safe as possible.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Amira said:

I think it’s far more likely that high schoolers are having unprotected sex because of lack of access to condoms than that they are having no sex because of that lack.  It makes sense to me to make them available. STIs and anyone getting pregnant at the wrong time are things I always want to help avoid.

My anecdotal experience - which is admitedly pretty far back in the past - was that people who failed to use them didn’t want to/didn’t make plans to and not so much couldn’t obtain them. People who used them obtained them ahead of time. 

[Momto6inIN]

18 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

Hmm.  My gut feeling is that it might not make a huge difference.  My main experience with this sort of thing was in a somewhat different setting.  When I was in university, the student safety office also had free condoms which anyone could take.  I used to volunteer at the walkhome service so sometimes I would see people come in a grab some.  Mostly though it wasn't done very seriously - I am sure they were used, at least some of them, but it wasn't a very serious thing to go get them, people often did it when they were having a lark.  I never got the feeling that had the condoms not been available, the people would have been out having unprotected sex.  Not that t convinced people to have sex who otherwise would not have done so.

That being said, there could be a group of kids at the high school who are less able to buy their own and more likely to be pressured into, or be foolish enough, to have sex anyway.  

I really don't see it as a nanny state thing.  To me its a public health issue. I'd much prefer the kids not to have sex, and in fact I am pretty conservative about birth control, but STIs are a worry in that demographic.

 

I went to the health clinic in college and grabbed 2 handfuls and used them for my Halloween costume. Only time I ever took advantage of the "free condoms perk" 😄

Not directed towards Bluegoat, but just general comments:

I think it is ridiculously inconsistent that we can't give our kids simple medications but they are allowed to hand out condoms without a parent ok.

I also think it's horrifically naive to think that teens don't typically use condoms because they can't afford them. As if the only thing standing in the way of teens becoming somehow magically responsible abour their sexuality is the availability of free condoms. Realistically free condoms maybe help like 5 kids.

Comprehensive sex ed that includes a heavy emphasis on waiting - and all the health and emotional benefits of doing so - as well as practical info on birth control and STDs from a source that the kids trust and like and feel comfortable asking questions to is the only thing that will long term make any difference. In an ideal world that would be provided by 2 loving parents of course and no need for any outside teachers. However most kids don't live in that ideal world.

So I get why they have to have it in schools. But it's one of the many reasons I'm glad to homeschool my kids - I'm quite sure our frank and honest and accurate discussions about sex are superior to whatever crap they would get at school that somehow manages to assume they should be treated like adults on this topic while simultaneously assuming they are imbeciles who cannot possibly control their own urges.

[DesertBlossom]

It bothers me, but I'm not sure I can articulate exactly why. 

Sex is a big deal. It shouldn't be taken lightly. It's a very grown-up act to participate in. On the one hand, we assume and expect our teens will probably make the decision to have sex, but on the other, we don't think they are quite grown up enough to go to the store and buy their own condoms. 

 

[itsheresomewhere]

For it.  And I would like to hope that this would allow someone who is picking up supplies, would get comfortable enough with the nurse to ask any questions they have.  

[Clemsondana]

My recollection of high school is that embarrassment was a much bigger deterrent to condom buying than cost, so I'm not sure that 'free from a nurse' would make much difference.  I dated a guy in high school whose younger brother was very...active.  Boyfriend said one night that younger brother had tried to get boyfriend to buy condoms for him.  Boyfriend refused, saying that he didn't need them and I would kill him (small town - knowing the cashier or bagger at the store would have been almost guaranteed, and they would have drawn the obvious conclusion that they were for the teen boy who was buying them).  I'm sure that boyfriend told their dad, who, while discouraging teen sex, bought condoms more than once for younger brother. 

I'm also frustrated with the way that health needs are handled in general.  I had childhood epilepsy and was responsible for taking medicine a couple of times/day starting in 4th grade.  By the time I was in high school, I took 4 pills spaced over the course of the day, with 1 (and maybe 2 if I had an afterschool activity) being taken away from home.  Although it violated rules, things were less draconian in the 80s/early 90s, and I carried a pill box, and usually some tylenol, with me and managed my medicine myself.  I do find the idea that I wouldn't be old enough to take medicine, but would be old enough to manage birth control, strange.  

And, for your daily funny - one day at co-op, one of the students came in and asked if anybody had tylenol.  Another student (whom I knew to be family friends to the inquiring student) checked her purse and handed her a tylenol.  These kids are high school juniors and are free to come and go from campus as needed, so I've always treated them as kind of goofy adults during class.  Another girl, new to homeschooling, stared openmouthed - wasn't I going to do anything?  Don't get me wrong - I would have intervened if I saw misuse, but I know the families and both would consider a tylenol to be something that the kids could handle on their own. 

[DesertBlossom]

1 minute ago, Momto5inIN said:

I went to the health clinic in college and grabbed 2 handfuls and used them for my Halloween costume. Only time I ever took advantage of the "free condoms perk" 😄

Not directed towards Bluegoat, but just general comments:

I think it is ridiculously inconsistent that we can't give our kids simple medications but they are allowed to hand out condoms without a parent ok.

I also think it's horrifically naive to think that teens don't typically use condoms because they can't afford them. As if the only thing standing in the way of teens becoming somehow magically responsible abour their sexuality is the availability of free condoms. Realistically free condoms maybe help like 5 kids.

Comprehensive sex ed that includes a heavy emphasis on waiting - and all the health and emotional benefits of doing so - as well as practical info on birth control and STDs from a source that the kids trust and like and feel comfortable asking questions to is the only thing that will long term make any difference. In an ideal world that would be provided by 2 loving parents of course and no need for any outside teachers. However most kids don't live in that ideal world.

So I get why they have to have it in schools. But it's one of the many reasons I'm glad to homeschool my kids - I'm quite sure our frank and honest and accurate discussions about sex are superior to whatever crap they would get at school that somehow manages to assume they should be treated like adults on this topic while simultaneously assuming they are imbeciles who cannot possibly control their own urges.

4

 
Yes to the bolded.

[Crimson Wife]

34 minutes ago, Quill said:

Still feels a bit line-crossy to me. My kid had to have a doctor’s release to get a cough drop or a dose of ibuprophen administered by thr health office. How can they stroll in and be given prophelactics? 

In my state, there are school-based health clinics that distribute hormonal birth control to girls as young as 12 without parental notification. This is legal despite the age of consent being 18. At least condoms don't have the possibility of causing a stroke or pulmonary embolism. 

[hjffkj]

2 minutes ago, Quill said:

My anecdotal experience - which is admitedly pretty far back in the past - was that people who failed to use them didn’t want to/didn’t make plans to and not so much couldn’t obtain them. People who used them obtained them ahead of time. 

 

That is not my experience from when I was in high school.  My experience was that if they were available people would use them but if they were not available those same people would consider not doing it and either be convinced by the other participant that it'll be ok just this once, or they would intend not to have sex but because they were under the influence would eventually cave to hormones and have it unprotected. 

[Pawz4me]

I don't see any logical reason to be against it. Sex happens, regardless of what some parents think. I'd prefer to be as pro-active as possible in making it safe and preventing both STDs and pregnancies. I belief abortion should be safe, legal and rare. This is one of many ways to work toward the "rare" part.

[Guest]

Quote

think it is ridiculously inconsistent that we can't give our kids simple medications but they are allowed to hand out condoms without a parent ok.

I also think it's horrifically naive to think that teens don't typically use condoms because they can't afford them. As if the only thing standing in the way of teens becoming somehow magically responsible abour their sexuality is the availability of free condoms. Realistically free condoms maybe help like 5 ki

Yeah, these two points are my general view. 

I also don’t think the dollars involved are a big deterrant for a teen to go buy his own protection. 

[Carrie12345]

I love it!

No one ever decided against having sex due to lack of school condoms, but some may decide to have safer sex than they would have otherwise.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

That is not my experience from when I was in high school.  My experience was that if they were available people would use them but if they were not available those same people would consider not doing it and either be convinced by the other participant that it'll be ok just this once, or they would intend not to have sex but because they were under the influence would eventually cave to hormones and have it unprotected. 

Yeah, but if you buy a box, you’re covered (lol, pun intended) for 36 interactions. But if you were embarrased about going into the health office at school and just got two or three on Friday - I mean, who’s going to grab 36? That doesn’t seem likely to me - this seems to me like the likelier scenario where now they’ve run out because of the weekend, but they don’t want to go back in the office on Monday. 

[Bluegoat]

i think the cost aspect, or the related transportation aspect, will depend a lot on the population involved.  There are people who struggle to afford extras and they can be especially vulnerable to STIs.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

i think the cost aspect, or the related transportation aspect, will depend a lot on the population involved.  There are people who struggle to afford extras and they can be especially vulnerable to STIs.

That is true...in this instance, though, one of the two counties with this program in place has a significant segment of lower income people. But the other county already doing the program, as well as the county that just adopted it, are two of the highest wealth counties in the state (even rank among the wealthiest counties in the entire USA.) So...I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to me that this has much to do with low-income assistance. 

 

[SKL]

I think it's a fact of life nowadays.  Parents need to be informed (that it is available to students) and they need to tell their kids whatever messages they want their kids to hear from them at home.

I'm not a fan of "you're going to do it anyway so here's a condom."  But I'm less a fan of a lot of other things that happen at high schools, some of which lead to pregnancy and worse.  My job as a parent is to teach my kids our family values at home and do a lot of praying.

[Ellie]

Oh heck no.

[SeaConquest]

I am definitely for it, but I want to share my experience working at Planned Parenthood when I was in college (for those who have concerns about their kids having access to contraception without their consent). In order to get birth control pills at our clinic, you had to have a pap smear (I don't know that this is still true today, as the guidelines re paps have changed over the years). Anyway, we always told the girls that we would only call them if their pap was abnormal. We explained to them what an abnormal pap could mean, and we explained that we would use a code name if we had to call their house (so their parents would not know that it was Planned Parenthood calling). We would say that their friend X called, so they would know to call the clinic because they would need further treatment. I only interned at the clinic for the summer, but even though we told the girls over and over that we could never tell their parents anything about their medical treatment with us, they were so petrified that their parents would find out they were sexually active, I cannot tell you how many girls gave us fake telephone numbers. These were girls that we needed to phone because their lab results came back with abnormal cells -- cells that could have eventually turned into cervical cancer, which is a silent, deadly killer. By the time you have symptoms, you are gone. 

I was one of those girls, who was too scared to talk to my parents and went to Planned Parenthood when I became sexually active. Thankfully, I had a normal pap, but I remember feeling that my number one priority (other than not getting pregnant) was making sure that my parents didn't find out. So, I really understood the fear these girls felt and why they took the risks that they did. Just something to keep in mind. 

Edited January 21, 2019 by SeaConquest

[SKL]

And I agree that it is ridiculous that kids aren't allowed to take over-the-counter meds when they want to without various levels of security applied.  The fact that my daughters have to ask permission to take a pain pill for period cramps (possibly from a male teacher/nurse) should be an outrage.  But I guess I should be glad they don't have to ask permission to change a pad ... yet.

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I'd say it seems contradictory rather than line-crossing.  Not being able to get a cough drop, or even ibuprofen, is just stupid.

One has to be ingested tho. The other is like distributing plastic bags or tube socks. External use only.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Pass them out! Baskets of condoms everywhere! 

[swimmermom3]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Still feels a bit line-crossy to me. My kid had to have a doctor’s release to get a cough drop or a dose of ibuprophen administered by thr health office. How can they stroll in and be given prophelactics? 

My thoughts are that handing out a condom is less likely to have a potential health implication than perhaps giving someone ibuprofen who may have an allergy. I know the policies regarding medications are irritating, but there are some good reasons for them. That said, I've done serious battle to have my kids carry asthma inhalers with them when there was a potential for flair up.

With regards to the "wrappers," I am good with it. As Blue Goat pointed out, the STD rates in not just that age group, but across the country, are rising rapidly. I thought our local high school did a very good job in covering the benefits of abstinence AND how to take effective precautions.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, DesertBlossom said:

It bothers me, but I'm not sure I can articulate exactly why. 

Sex is a big deal. It shouldn't be taken lightly. It's a very grown-up act to participate in. On the one hand, we assume and expect our teens will probably make the decision to have sex, but on the other, we don't think they are quite grown up enough to go to the store and buy their own condoms. 

 

Many adults don’t practice safe sex or actively use birth control when not planning on pregnancy, so why would we expect all teenagers to have that level of maturity and responsibility?

[Petrichor]

I don't believe sex before marriage is ok, but I support condoms being available to teens, even through the schools. It would be great if they were more available - I worry that some would feel embarrassed to ask and would take the risk of going without.

I plan to make them available to my kids when they become teens, even though we are strongly, religiously against pre-marital sex. Kids make stupid choices sometimes. The presence of condoms isn't going to encourage them to have sex, but it can prevent them from getting STDs or pregnant if they do find themselves in that situation.

[Frances]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I got pregnant at 17.  While using protection.

A 3pk of condoms cost like $5 or $10 at CVS.  I am pretty sure most gas stations sell them.  And even if a person couldn't buy them, there were for sure plenty of kids at school that carried some with them.  I would be surprised if providing condoms in schools actually did anything to decrease teen births or STDs

 

 

Even if they only prevent one pregnancy or one case of an STD, that’s enough for me. Every little bit helps. Hopefully they are being used as a second level of protection in many cases.

[DesertBlossom]

20 minutes ago, Frances said:

Many adults don’t practice safe sex or actively use birth control when not planning on pregnancy, so why would we expect all teenagers to have that level of maturity and responsibility?

What exactly is your point?  

Having unsafe, casual sex is stupid. But instead of telling people they are being stupid we are going to try to spare them them the consequences of their reckless decisions by trying to get them free protection. Is that really going to help anyone make better long-term decisions?

I really think we are doing teenagers and young adults (and grown-ups, for that matter) a huge disservice by teaching them that the only limits they ought to put on their sexuality is to wear a condom. Sometimes the decision to have sex is a really bad idea. But instead of saying, "if you're going to make that bad decision at least wear a condom." How about no.

 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

What exactly is your point?  

Having unsafe, casual sex is stupid. But instead of telling people they are being stupid we are going to try to spare them them the consequences of their reckless decisions by trying to get them free protection. Is that really going to help anyone make better long-term decisions?

I really think we are doing teenagers and young adults (and grown-ups, for that matter) a huge disservice by teaching them that the only limits they ought to put on their sexuality is to wear a condom. Sometimes the decision to have sex is a really bad idea. But instead of saying, "if you're going to make that bad decision at least wear a condom." How about no.

 

 

Maybe because ‘just say no’ hasn’t been an effective message, about anything, for the last 50 years?

[Bluegoat]

48 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

One has to be ingested tho. The other is like distributing plastic bags or tube socks. External use only.

 

High school kids ought to be able to manage ibuprofen and cough drops though. 

[Frances]

Just now, DesertBlossom said:

What exactly is your point?  

Having unsafe, casual sex is stupid. But instead of telling people they are being stupid we are going to try to spare them them the consequences of their reckless decisions by trying to get them free protection. Is that really going to help anyone make better long-term decisions?

I really think we are doing teenagers and young adults (and grown-ups, for that matter) a huge disservice by teaching them that the only limits they ought to put on their sexuality is to wear a condom. Sometimes the decision to have sex is a really bad idea. But instead of saying, "if you're going to make that bad decision at least wear a condom." How about no.

 

I actually don’t disagree with you that sex should wait until marriage and that having unsafe, casual sex is stupid, although not due to religious beliefs. I also think people should wait to have children, even if they are married, until they are ready to be parents. But as we can see all around us, lots and lots of people aren’t doing that. So if having condoms available at school prevents even one case of an unplanned pregnancy or one STD transmission, I’m still all for it. I’m also for comprehensive sex education that explains all of the positives of waiting while also providing complete information for those who do not wait. We know from research that some teens raised in very religious homes with strong prohibitions on premarital sex, not only don’t wait, but end up pregnant or with an STD. So obviously telling them just don’t do it doesn’t always work, even when it’s been drilled into them from a very young age.

[Bluegoat]

16 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I got pregnant at 17.  While using protection.

A 3pk of condoms cost like $5 or $10 at CVS.  I am pretty sure most gas stations sell them.  And even if a person couldn't buy them, there were for sure plenty of kids at school that carried some with them.  I would be surprised if providing condoms in schools actually did anything to decrease teen births or STDs

 

 

 

It would be nice to see some kind of stats on the effects of programs like this, when and if they really help.  As much as "if it only prevents one problem" sounds nice, its not the best way to decide where to put money and energy.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Bluegoat said:

 

High school kids ought to be able to manage ibuprofen and cough drops though. 

I don’t disagree. We live in a litigious society tho.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, swimmermom3 said:

My thoughts are that handing out a condom is less likely to have a potential health implication than perhaps giving someone ibuprofen who may have an allergy. I know the policies regarding medications are irritating, but there are some good reasons for them. That said, I've done serious battle to have my kids carry asthma inhalers with them when there was a potential for flair up.

With regards to the "wrappers," I am good with it. As Blue Goat pointed out, the STD rates in not just that age group, but across the country, are rising rapidly. I thought our local high school did a very good job in covering the benefits of abstinence AND how to take effective precautions.

There’s such a thing as a latex allergy, though. 

I still see it as inconsistent, because if the risk inherant in a school nurse giving a student Tylanol is some potential allergy or misdose, how is there not a risk in giving prophelactics, which is tacitly condoning sex, which can absolutely lead to pregnancy or STDs either with a c@ndom, or in another instance wherein the teens were fresh out of their school supplies? 

It’s as though there is a belief - one I view as faulty - that if they are available for free from the school health aid, suddenly these otherwise-not-necessarily-responsible teens are going to use them correctly and consistently. (Besides which, they are not 100% even with correct and consistent use.) If there’s liability in saying, “The school nurse gave my son Tylanol, to which he is violently allergic, and he almost died,” isn’t there also liability in saying, “The school nurse gave my son three c@ndoms, which he used over the weekend; one broke and now he is testing as HIV-positive.”? 

[Frances]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

It would be nice to see some kind of stats on the effects of programs like this, when and if they really help.  As much as "if it only prevents one problem" sounds nice, its not the best way to decide where to put money and energy.

How much money and energy does such a program really take? Research has shown that comprehensive sex education programs are better than abstinence only ones, but that doesn’t mean anything in some conservative parts of the country. Knowing what research has shown to be effective when it comes to such things is as much a reason something would be dismissed as implemented in this country.

[HomeAgain]

7 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

What exactly is your point?  

Having unsafe, casual sex is stupid. But instead of telling people they are being stupid we are going to try to spare them them the consequences of their reckless decisions by trying to get them free protection. Is that really going to help anyone make better long-term decisions?

I really think we are doing teenagers and young adults (and grown-ups, for that matter) a huge disservice by teaching them that the only limits they ought to put on their sexuality is to wear a condom. Sometimes the decision to have sex is a really bad idea. But instead of saying, "if you're going to make that bad decision at least wear a condom." How about no.

 

Calling babies "consequences" is rude, crude, and distasteful.  Free protection helps those unwanted babies from becoming reality.  So really, it's about preventing babies from being unloved objects of reality, isn't it?  And I'm sure you can find it in your heart to care about putting babies in a situation where they are likely to have an unstable family life and poverty due to a parent not going on to higher education because they need to provide for a child right now.  Because of a decision they made based on hormones when they were young.

But sure, keep shouting "no" and see if it does any better good than real action.  It's been proven that the more education a young adult has about s*x and the more they are able to get prevention aids, the less teen pregnancy there is.  Abstinence education has been a right failure.  I would assume that a parent would research that and understand the world statistics in order to give their child the best education possible about their own body. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

It would be nice to see some kind of stats on the effects of programs like this, when and if they really help.  As much as "if it only prevents one problem" sounds nice, its not the best way to decide where to put money and energy.

 One state...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.denverpost.com/2012/07/05/abstinence-vs-sex-education/amp/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0

[Frances]

4 minutes ago, Quill said:

There’s such a thing as a latex allergy, though. 

I still see it as inconsistent, because if the risk inherant in a school nurse giving a student Tylanol is some potential allergy or misdose, how is there not a risk in giving prophelactics, which is tacitly condoning sex, which can absolutely lead to pregnancy or STDs either with a c@ndom, or in another instance wherein the teens were fresh out of their school supplies? 

It’s as though there is a belief - one I view as faulty - that if they are available for free from the school health aid, suddenly these otherwise-not-necessarily-responsible teens are going to use them correctly and consistently. (Besides which, they are not 100% even with correct and consistent use.) If there’s liability in saying, “The school nurse gave my son Tylanol, to which he is violently allergic, and he almost died,” isn’t there also liability in saying, “The school nurse gave my son three c@ndoms, which he used over the weekend; one broke and now he is testing as HIV-positive.”? 

Is this all they are doing or do the schools in question also have comprehensive sex education programs?