A Mysterious Epidemic of Parasitic Infections

"After an outbreak of pregnancies among middle school girls," A.P. reports, "education officials in this city [Portland, Maine] have decided to allow a school health center to make birth control pills available to girls as young as 11." This action seems precipitous to me. First the school officials should ask disease specialists from the CDC to investigate this outbreak and determine its cause.

Here is my May 2007 reason article on the "tendency to call every perceived problem affecting more than two people an 'epidemic.'"

[Thanks to Michael Stack for the tip.]

Comments

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 1:18pm | #

Anything that can reduce the number of teen pregnancies and abortions is a good idea.

Russ R | October 18, 2007, 1:22pm | #

How about forced sterilization? Would that be a good idea?

ed | October 18, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Hysterectomies for all!

de stijl | October 18, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Stupid kids. They should know to do it standing up and then douche with Coca-Cola afterwards.

Auctioneer | October 18, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Genocide? Do I hear genocide?

VM | October 18, 2007, 1:25pm | #

PROM NIGHT DUMPSTER BABY

Captain Chaos | October 18, 2007, 1:25pm | #

Russ R- I've heard worse ideas.

Taktix® | October 18, 2007, 1:26pm | #

I imagine the pregnant 11-year-olds haven't worried about sex because they still think babies come from storks.

de stijl | October 18, 2007, 1:27pm | #

Stupid AP. A smart reporter would have written whther they were getting abstinence-only sex ed or not.

MP | October 18, 2007, 1:28pm | #

That's what happens when you try to stimulate population growth. Everyone wants in.

Episiarch | October 18, 2007, 1:29pm | #

See, the first thing I think of when I hear about these is "damn, those dudes getting play at 12 are some early operators".

Is that wrong?

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 1:34pm | #

How about forced sterilization? Would that be a good idea?

Yes Russ R, thats exactly what I was going for. Except not.

You know damn well what I meant.

brec | October 18, 2007, 1:39pm | #

Um, I was unable to find the word "epidemic" in the linked article. So, perhaps the complaint should be against the use of "outbreak"?

Russ R | October 18, 2007, 1:39pm | #

And you should know that anything you write here will be read literally, interpreted unfavourable, and mocked mercilessly.

Get used to it.

Russ R | October 18, 2007, 1:40pm | #

unfavourably...

... commence mocking

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 1:40pm | #

And you should know that anything you write here will be read literally, interpreted unfavourable, and mocked mercilessly.

Only if you're Dan T.

If someone said anything that promotes free markets is a good idea, I wouldn't respond with WELL DO YOU THINK PINOCHET WAS GOOD? HUH?

Warren | October 18, 2007, 1:41pm | #

Anything that can reduce the number of teen pregnancies and abortions is a good idea.

I can't agree. If anything we should be aborting more teenagers. A high school student without at least a summer job, is just a parasite and should be exterminated.

Mocking Bird | October 18, 2007, 1:42pm | #

Mock...

mock...

econ2econ | October 18, 2007, 1:42pm | #

Birth control isn't aspirin. Many girls/women have bad reactions to the hormones. I find it surprising, too, considering that much more innocent drugs (like aspirin!) are banned from being carried by students!

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 1:42pm | #

Birth control isn't aspirin. Many girls/women have bad reactions to the hormones. I find it surprising, too, considering that much more innocent drugs (like aspirin!) are banned from being carried by students!

Now, thats a good point! Getting suspended from bringing Tylenol and Aspirin to school is just dumb.

Nav D. | October 18, 2007, 1:44pm | #

As Maine goes, so goes the nation.

Paul | October 18, 2007, 1:47pm | #

This AP news story is surely incorrect. Let me fix it:

"After an outbreak of pregnancies among middle school girls," A.P. reports, "education officials in this city [Portland, Maine] [Burien, Wa] have decided to allow a school health center to make birth control pills available to girls as young as 11."

MattXIV | October 18, 2007, 1:49pm | #

I don't think it'd necessarily make things worse, but BC pills are probably the least effective contraception to hand out in this way. They need to be taken consistently to be effective and there is a lead time between when you need to start taking them and when they'll suppress ovulation. I doubt this will have any significant benefits beyond what they'd get out of making condoms available and to if students start subsitituting it for condoms, it may actually increase problems.

econ2econ | October 18, 2007, 1:51pm | #

I don't think it'd necessarily make things worse, but BC pills are probably the least effective contraception to hand out in this way. They need to be taken consistently to be effective and there is a lead time between when you need to start taking them and when they'll suppress ovulation. I doubt this will have any significant benefits beyond what they'd get out of making condoms available and to if students start subsitituting it for condoms, it may actually increase problems.

Excellent point.

Matt L | October 18, 2007, 1:52pm | #

Aresen,

I won't take that bet. The debate has already been raging in the comments section of the Portland paper for the past three days.

Middle school adds birth control options

Let school step in when parents don't

Prescribe 'the pill' at Middle school?

Is it Maine week at Hit & Run? First naked lunch, then Susan Collins and MoveOn, a quote from a Maine rep on the regional development bill, and now this birth control stuff.

Episiarch | October 18, 2007, 1:53pm | #

You know, I get the feeling that many of you are bitter that some dudes are getting laid at an age where the closest you got to pussy was when you petted the housecat.

Why do you hate the teenage scorers?

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 1:55pm | #

I hate all teenagers, period. Even when I was a teenager I hated teenagers.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 2:04pm | #

Let us know when you turn 20.

That would have been six years ago. I still don't like teenagers.

Scott Clark | October 18, 2007, 2:08pm | #

Has anyone found out if there is a 17 year old who has been held back five times? He may know something about this "outbreak."

Reinmoose | October 18, 2007, 2:09pm | #

I sometimes work with teenagers. I find their love affairs and general confusion to be entertaining, especially when you know what they're thinking when they think they're totally stealth. It's like watching kittens who think you can't see them hiding in the grass when you're walking toward them. It's totally ridiculous.

Abdul | October 18, 2007, 2:09pm | #

The "outbreak" of pregnancies consisted of 17 over the last 4 years.

One thing about the school's policy is that the health clinic has to keep all the kid's information confidential. Getting preggo before 13 means there's some chance the dad is a child molester. Whatever happened to schools & medical personnel being mandatory reporters of child abuse?

Russ 2000 | October 18, 2007, 2:10pm | #

I think the schools should promote safe sex. Staff a couple of young, clean whores so the kids who want to fuck don't have to get it on the streets.

Russ R | October 18, 2007, 2:12pm | #

"Anything that can reduce the number of teen pregnancies and abortions [without resctricting individual's freedoms or imposing costs on taxpayers] is a good idea"

Better?

How about reducing payments to welfare moms, cutting state-subsidized day-care, and eliminating refundable tax-credits for popping out kids?

I'd be in favour of any of the above, which would reduce the incentive to procreate before being financially capable of supporting children.

LarryA | October 18, 2007, 2:17pm | #

Five of the 134 students who visited King's health center during the 2006-07 school year

1. Three or four percent of the few students who visit the health clinic are sexually active. Six to eight percent of girls, depending on the patient ratio.

2. They have a school health clinic for less than one patient per school day?

"damn, those dudes getting play at 12 are some early operators"

You’re presuming that the fathers are early teens. Ain’t necessarily so.

de stijl | October 18, 2007, 2:18pm | #

Russ R,

If you really want people to think you're a sophisticated Euro-type, pronounce v's like they were w's.

Oh, and wear an ascot.

de stijl | October 18, 2007, 2:20pm | #

Russ R,

Oops! I think you were outing yourself on your usage and not your spelling. If you are a sophisticated Euro-type (or even a Canadian), please disregard my previous comment.

Taktix® | October 18, 2007, 2:36pm | #

Reinmoose: I sometimes work with teenagers

Hey, I thought we told you about staying away from those teenagers. Now we know the true cause of this outbreak...

Paul | October 18, 2007, 2:37pm | #

The "outbreak" of pregnancies consisted of 17 over the last 4 years.

Oh, my bad, this wasn't Burien, WA. I think Burien had about 17 last month...

stubby | October 18, 2007, 2:39pm | #

The birth control pill is a PILL for God's sake - it requires a prescription, and they will be passing them out free to kids without parental permission?? And yet the 11 year old who inadvertantly brings a bottle of Advil to school will, no doubt, be suspended for three days under "zero tolerance." And the 11 year old boy who swats a girl on the butt will be charged with sexual harrassment - birth control is fine, sex is fine, but don't touch anyone while at school. No mixed signals there.

And if you did a Ven diagram of A) people who think giving middle schoolers birth control pills is fine and dandy and socially englightened, and B) people who cry about the "kids" in the military while protesting BusHitler's war, you'd have very close to just one big circle, right?

This really pisses me off. My daughter is 6, and attends a parochial school - in Texas - so chances that this foolish shit would happen down here are nil, but goddamn. Giving medication to peoples' minor children without their permission? Why not just turn your kids over to the state bodily and get it over with?

Paul | October 18, 2007, 2:41pm | #

Getting preggo before 13 means there's some chance the dad is a child molester. Whatever happened to schools & medical personnel being mandatory reporters of child abuse?

Abdul... statistically *some chance* is a long way from an automatic report of child abuse.

When the thirteen year old comes in looking like a Bratz(tm) doll with one of those short jackets and a fur-lined hood texting on her cell phone with her 16 year old baggy-pantsed boyfriend in tow, I'm not really looking at the dad.

Paul | October 18, 2007, 2:50pm | #

Giving medication to peoples' minor children without their permission? Why not just turn your kids over to the state bodily and get it over with?

It takes a village, stubby...

Ok, that was trollish. I apologize.

Abdul | October 18, 2007, 2:50pm | #

Paul,

There's a lot to criticize with mandatory reporting laws and strict liability for statutory rape, but with those laws on the books any sexually active child under the age of consent is a crime victim who has to be reported to authorities.

Paul | October 18, 2007, 3:03pm | #

those laws on the books any sexually active child under the age of consent is a crime victim who has to be reported to authorities.

I agree... tentatively. But what you're now referring to isn't child abuse [by parent], but, as you say, statutory rape.

The problem with this is, what does a school do (Burien *cough*) that has a rate of teen pregnancy so high (Burien *cough*) that they have a "First Steps" coordinator with a permanent office in the school?

de stijl | October 18, 2007, 3:07pm | #

Yeah, it's probably not daddy dearest in this case. They usually have the decency to pay for an abortion.

(I don't believe in Hell, but now I may go anyway with that comment.)

Episiarch | October 18, 2007, 3:11pm | #

The problem with this is, what does a school do (Burien *cough*) that has a rate of teen pregnancy so high (Burien *cough*) that they have a "First Steps" coordinator with a permanent office in the school?

Why is this place's preg rate so high? Any theories?

robc | October 18, 2007, 3:17pm | #

Paul,

When the thirteen year old comes in looking like a Bratz(tm) doll with one of those short jackets and a fur-lined hood texting on her cell phone with her 16 year old baggy-pantsed boyfriend in tow prostitot, I'm not really looking at the dad.

Shorter to type.

econ2econ | October 18, 2007, 3:19pm | #

The pregnancy rate is so high because they don't think they have a future. When people see babies as obstacles to their future happiness, they work to prevent pregnancy. When people see babies as something fun, a way out, a meal ticket, a way to keep the boyfriend around, a status symbol, or what have you, they won't try as hard, or may actively seek it. Within many communities, teen pregnancy isn't even seen as bad!

stubbylibrarian | October 18, 2007, 3:30pm | #

It seems to be a lower-income school and they typically have higher rates of pregnancy - poor girls get pregnant out of wedlock more frequently than middle class and wealthy girls and we could have a days-long discussion on the welfare culture, fatherless families, minority teens, etc etc etc - like we've done on countless threads - but so what. It's beside the point. Why they are getting pregnant does not matter. Can the state, through the school system, give body system-altering prescription medication to minor children absent parental permission? Apparently it can. And apparently some people think it should.

If any of these kids are being sexually abused, that's a law enforcement matter. If any of these kids are living without any parental involvement, or in extreme neglect, that's a social services matter (do liberatarians approve of social services? I'm ideologically impure so I don't know).

If a child of Christian Scientist parents gets a baterial infection, the school may forbid her from attending classes until the she's well, but the school can't give her antibiotics without her parents' consent. How she got the infection is beside the point. But because pregnancy is sexually induced, and because everyone seems to have decided that 12 year olds are going to have sex so you might as well help them protect themselves, it's okay to give them birth control pills? Understand that I have no religious objections to birth control - I'm Baptist/Catholic/Episcopal and, as I said, ideologically impure in religious as well as political matters. Condoms I won't argue with. But not birth control pills.

And if we're going to treat 11 year olds like adults in sexual and criminal matters, then hell. Give them the vote, let them drink, let them get drivers licenses, make them get jobs and contribute to the family income.

I would go on about how our society seems to have decided that sex is the single most important biological function of humans, and that repressing, delaying, diverting or declining to discuss our sexual impulses seems to be the single worst thing we as modern humans can do, but I already sound like my mother.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 3:35pm | #

stubby-

I bet most of these kids hardly have "parents" at all.

Russ R | October 18, 2007, 3:36pm | #

I'm Canadian...

... commence mocking.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 3:39pm | #

Russ R-

So you want children to starve in the streets?

How does it feel being taken literally?

de stijl | October 18, 2007, 3:39pm | #

Damn maple-sucking puck slappers.

stubbylibrarian | October 18, 2007, 3:40pm | #

Cesar:

Then those kids need to be taken into care. Does the state allow its foster kids to have access to prescription medication without oversight? Doubt it. Meanwhile, the involved, active parents at the school - because there surely are some, even if they aren't in the majority - stand by and watch the state usurp yet more of their rights.

Paul | October 18, 2007, 3:41pm | #

Why is this place's preg rate so high? Any theories?

Episiarch:

One word: poverty.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 3:42pm | #

I agree. But as long as its possible for teens to get pregnant without parental consent--a decision that directly impacts the lives on their parents since they often end up being the ones who really raise and support them--I don't see why they can't get birth control without their consent. Really, which is more of a burden on the parent?

Now about it being state funded, of course thats bullshit. We shouldn't have public schools at all, welfare, blah blah blah. Standard libertarian rant here.

Paul | October 18, 2007, 3:42pm | #

Episiarch, for a better description: read econ2econ's post.

Paul | October 18, 2007, 3:48pm | #

I'm Canadian...

... commence mocking.

No need, you mocked yourself the moment you uttered "Canadian".

Episiarch | October 18, 2007, 3:50pm | #

I'm Canadian...commence mocking.

Why? You're Canadian, that's bad enough. No need to make you feel worse.

Episiarch, for a better description: read econ2econ's post.

I see. I had thought maybe it was something more interesting, like jr. high orgy parties, etc. Does every town have those stories, or was mine special?

Jennifer | October 18, 2007, 3:51pm | #

Cesar, don't get upset over the opinions of one misguided enough to think that bacon should be round.

gaijin | October 18, 2007, 3:56pm | #

I see. I had thought maybe it was something more interesting, like jr. high orgy parties, etc. Does every town have those stories, or was mine special?

We have the oft-rumored 'lipstick' parties. Perhaps a typical Catholic community rumor (oral, apparently, not condemning one to hell like actual, you know).

gaijin | October 18, 2007, 3:57pm | #

That should read, 'we have many rumors of lipstick parties...' I don;t actually know if they happen.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 4:00pm | #

How many people here would be mad if their daughter turned out to be sexually active, but was taking birth control so she wouldn't get pregnant and making the guy use condoms so she won't get a disease? I'd be freaking relieved.

stubbylibrarian | October 18, 2007, 4:01pm | #

I understand your point, but I think you're conflating two separate issues. The state recognizes - or at least used to - a parent's right to make decisions, including medical decisions, for their minor children. A child who contracts a serious illness and doesn't receive the proper medication can be a burden on his parents. But the school would not medicate that child without parental permission. It is not the state's place, or the school district's, to protect parents from the economic consequences of their minor childrens' actions. Where would you stop? Does the school give psychological counseling to troubled students without parents' permission? So if an 8th grader burns down the school, his parents won't be sued for it? Of course not. Plus the DA will try to try the kid as an adult.

And let's not forget that states do not recognize a minor's ability to consent to sex in the first place! How many 17 year old boys have been registered as sex offenders cause they had sex with their 16 year old girlfriends??

No offense intended, but I think you approve of the outcome - girls get birth control pills so they don't get pregnant, thereby lessening at least somewhat the chances of their being mired in poverty forever - a positive outcome -and so you are trying to justify the means. I don't think that works.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 4:03pm | #

No offense intended, but I think you approve of the outcome - girls get birth control pills so they don't get pregnant, thereby lessening at least somewhat the chances of their being mired in poverty forever - a positive outcome -and so you are trying to justify the means. I don't think that works.

I agree with you it shouldn't be tax-payer funded. But I think minor should be able to get condoms and birth control, unless you want to make it possible for parents to force abortions on their daughters since they didn't make they didn't consent to their pregnancy.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 4:04pm | #

Stubby lets pretend its a 100% private school that was doing this. Would you object?

stubbylibrarian | October 18, 2007, 4:11pm | #

Yes, I would. It's not the taxpayer funded part that offends me - it's the medicating children without parental permission.

And remember - the birth control pill is not side effect free and it is not appropriate for all girls or women. It interrupts the body's normal operations and pumps in lots of hormones and if a woman (or girl) has certain other physical conditions - high blood pressure, migraine headaches, obesity - it could be dangerous. And not every woman can take every type of pill - the pills differ in dosage, strength, hormonal ingredients. There is no such thing as "the" pill - there are many pills, which is why they are prescribed by doctors and not sold over the counter. It's incredibly irresponsible. And as mentioned above, if the pill is not taken with great regularity it will be ineffective.

Will the health center be staffed by OB/GYNs or nurse practitioners who will take detailed medical histories of the girls before prescribing?

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 4:12pm | #

Will the health center be staffed by OB/GYNs or nurse practitioners who will take detailed medical histories of the girls before prescribing?

If its not, thats neglect. I wouldn't approve if they're handing them out like M&Ms, no. Do you object to condoms?

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 4:15pm | #

Of course if all schools were private, this would be a moot point. Parents wouldn't send their kids to a school like that if they objected.

stubbylibrarian | October 18, 2007, 4:17pm | #

One more thing - as to the economic burden on the parent if the kid gets pregnant. Yes, that's bad. But being a parent is a risky proposition from the get go, and you are incurring expenses and burdens as a result of your kids' decisions all the time. It's just part of the deal. No, parents shouldn't be able to force their children to get abortions - but parents have been kicking their pregnant daughters out of the house for millenia. It's not nice, it's not loving, but it's an option. And some parents - many parents - willingly raise or help raise their unintended grandchildren. Again - it is not the state's place to mitigate a parent's economic risks.

And yes, I know that many of those kids' parents became parents because they got knocked up as teenagers. Life is full of bad things. The state can't protect us from all of them, nor should it. The fact that this bad thing is initiated by sexual contact does not remove it from a parent's sphere of responsiblity.

And why can't the boys use the damned condoms that are already freely available?

VM | October 18, 2007, 4:19pm | #

re: public and private funding. Currently we have to face the fact that there's public money in everything, so the "I wouldn't object if no public money were involved" is rather tricky.

but there shouldn't be anything wrong about handing out condoms and making sure people understand sexuality and stay out of ignorance.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 4:19pm | #

Stubby, this just shows why public school in general is a screwed up idea. A lot of public schools are turning into surrogate parents.

And yeah, welfare payments play their part too.

The state here is basically trying to get more involved to fix things that they screwed up by getting involved in the first place.

stubbylibrarian | October 18, 2007, 4:19pm | #

Posts crossed. No, I don't object to free condoms. I do object to schools throwing out free condoms with one hand while having boys locked up for sexual assault-through-touching on the other, but that's another matter.

Basically I think all public school administrators, and most public school board trustees, are morons.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 4:21pm | #

Yeah, I agree consenting sex between minors shouldn't be criminalized. Its a matter for parents to punish their kids if they catch them and object.

Paul | October 18, 2007, 4:22pm | #

How many people here would be mad if their daughter turned out to be sexually active, but was taking birth control so she wouldn't get pregnant and making the guy use condoms so she won't get a disease? I'd be freaking relieved.

Cesar, this is always the million dollar question to test where a parent really stands on the issue of birth control vs. teen pregnancy vs. the reality of sexually active teens.

I would have extremely mixed feelings. I would be pissed that the village school knows more about my daughter's sexual habits than I do. I would question my abilities as a parent because I might feel like I failed in some way. On the other hand I would be quietly relieved that she's dealing with her sexual activity in a "responsible" manner. As for other related emotional hot-points: It also would depend on how old she was. It would super-double depend on who and how old the (soon to be dead) boyfriend was.

Ultimately, it would only be an opening round. I wouldn't walk away saying "phew". It would basically raise more questions that it answered. Birth control isn't a guarantee to remain pregnancy free. Handing birth control to an underage teenager without counseling and the other required accoutrements is problematic. If she was under the age of consent, and he was 17 or 18, you can bet there'd be fireworks.

Ultimately, it's not an easy answer or position to be in as a parent. Especially if you're a parent who not only acts like a parent, but really cares.

Rimfax | October 18, 2007, 4:23pm | #

When the thirteen year old comes in looking like a Bratz(tm) doll with one of those short jackets and a fur-lined hood texting on her cell phone with her 16 year old baggy-pantsed boyfriend in tow, I'm not really looking at the dad.

Well, in my experience, girls who are sexually compulsive were sexually abused very young, so eyes should go back to the family members, including dad.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 4:23pm | #

Paul-

I think we can all agree it should be up to the parents more than the state. And yeah, I'd be more upset if she was 13 than if she was 16 or 17.

Rimfax | October 18, 2007, 4:26pm | #

It's also important to remember that birth control pills and condoms do not prevent HPV transmission and that Herpes transmission is still a possibility, too.

ed | October 18, 2007, 4:28pm | #

Perhaps we could simply adopt the ways of Islam and arrange for the girls to have clitorectomies? Or is everyone here a cultural bigot?

Do I need to add sarcasm tags or something?

stubbylibrarian | October 18, 2007, 4:30pm | #

I agree with everything Paul says as well. And I'd be worried, cause my husband is a nice guy, and a great father, and not at all violent. But this is Texas and he's a gun collector.

MattXIV | October 18, 2007, 4:39pm | #

How many people here would be mad if their daughter turned out to be sexually active, but was taking birth control so she wouldn't get pregnant and making the guy use condoms so she won't get a disease? I'd be freaking relieved.

Uh, I'd say this is highly contingent on how said hypothetical daughter is. If she were in her late teens, I'd be a little concerned (especially if it weren't in the context of a stable relationship) but I'd be glad that she was at least being responsible about it. If she were in the middle school age range (11-14), Mr. Foot would be plotting a course for some guy's ass.

I think that making birth control available is a good thing overall, since lack of access to it isn't a major deterent to sexual activity, but granting a middle-school-aged child sexual autonomy is as good of an idea as granting a 4-year-old dietary autonomy. If your middle-school-aged child is sexually active an you're not deeply concerned, you're a bad parent.

vicki | October 18, 2007, 4:39pm | #

"I imagine the pregnant 11-year-olds haven't worried about sex because they still think babies come from storks."

I worked with a 12-year-old girl (social work) who was pregnant. Her boyfriend was 27. I think she had a pretty good understanding of where babies come from before she became pregnant.

Lots of girls have sex while in middle school because they mistake sex for love.

Russ R | October 18, 2007, 4:41pm | #

"So you want children to starve in the streets?"

No, I want children to be raised and supported by their parents, and not by the government.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 4:45pm | #

If your middle-school-aged child is sexually active an you're not deeply concerned, you're a bad parent.

Most parents who have kids sexually active that young probably aren't even aware of it. If the kid is 16-17 though, you know (mostly) what you're doing by then and the potential consequences thereof.

Let me re-phrase my statement--I'd be relieved if she was 16 or over, and be relieved that she (sort of) acted responsibly if she was under though it goes without saying there would be a lot of concerns. And if the guy was over 18, I'd want him arrested for child molestation. .

Dawg | October 18, 2007, 4:54pm | #

"How many 17 year old boys have been registered as sex offenders cause they had sex with their 16 year old girlfriends?? "

Can you say "Georgia".

Teacher Joan | October 18, 2007, 5:01pm | #

"if the pill is not taken with great regularity it will be ineffective."

(kids in class all stand and recite in unison)

I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the Republic for which it stands - One nation, under (take pill here,) indivisible - with liberty and justice for all."

Paul | October 18, 2007, 5:07pm | #

I worked with a 12-year-old girl (social work) who was pregnant. Her boyfriend was 27.

As a father of a five-year-old girl, I now declare it time to start fondling the firearms.

Paul | October 18, 2007, 5:08pm | #

And I'd be worried, cause my husband is a nice guy, and a great father, and not at all violent. But this is Texas and he's a gun collector.

Wow, I could be your husband... but I don't live in Texas.

Teacher Joan | October 18, 2007, 5:11pm | #

"As a father of a five-year-old girl, I now declare it time to start fondling the firearms."

No need to worry. She assured me that the father -- despite being in jail on an unrealed matter -- was a really nice guy.

Kids say the darnedest things!

stubbylibrarian | October 18, 2007, 5:13pm | #

Paul - The Daddy insists that when Talks Too Much begins dating, he will always just so happen to be cleaning one of the guns when the guy comes to pick her up.

Paul | October 18, 2007, 5:19pm | #

Stubby: (and thank god you're a woman, you wouldn't want to be advertising that name as a guy... just sayin')

When it became known that I was going to be the father of a girl, I was given one very prescient piece of wisdom:

"Well, it's not a boy, so your dealings with the police will be minimized. However, now you're going to have to find new and creative places to hide all the bodies of her boyfriends."

I now find myself driving through the woods on weekends thinking, "Hmm, this would be a good place..."

Paul | October 18, 2007, 5:20pm | #

She assured me that the father -- despite being in jail on an unrealed matter -- was a really nice guy.

Teacher:

I think another one is: "It wasn't his fault, and all that is behind him now, anyway."

Paul | October 18, 2007, 5:27pm | #

The Daddy insists that when Talks Too Much begins dating,

I'm hoping that when my little Runs With Scissors gets old enough, she'll have the good sense of her mother. No, wait, I didn't mean that...

SIV | October 18, 2007, 7:07pm | #

If the State was giving my 11 y/o daughter birth control pills without my knowledge or consent
things would get pretty Waco/Ruby Ridge real quick when I found out about it.

Hey, why not ritalin and psych meds too?

Thomas Paine's Goiter | October 18, 2007, 8:17pm | #

I do not think they understand the word "outbreak" neither in scope nor usage.

The Wine Commonsewer | October 18, 2007, 8:31pm | #

PROM NIGHT DUMPSTER BABY

My buddy Paige was a Prom Night Baby. No dumpster though.

stubbylibrarian | October 18, 2007, 8:41pm | #

A friend of mine - a nurse - insists that many cases of infertility could be resolved if the hopeful parents would don taffeta and tuxedo and go at it in the back seat of a parent's car. Something about taffeta rubbing on upholstery. We haven't determined if it has to be leather, fabric, vinyl or what.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 9:10pm | #

Hey SIV, what if your 14-year old was smoking bong hits without your consent? No state support here. But I know you like those Dutch cigarettes, so at what age would it be ok for your children to smoke one?

Mad Max | October 18, 2007, 9:11pm | #

"I worked with a 12-year-old girl (social work) who was pregnant. Her boyfriend was 27."

I'm generally skeptical about the death penalty, but in this case, I would say, when you feed this guy into the wood-chipper, make sure you feed him in feet-first, so that his suffering doesn't just end right away. Give him time to *savor* the experience.

Paul | October 19, 2007, 1:18am | #

taffeta and tuxedo and go at it in the back seat of a parent's car. Something about taffeta rubbing on upholstery. We haven't determined if it has to be leather, fabric, vinyl or what.

When my wife was trying to get pregnant, I suggested that I quit my job, pick up a meth addiction, and she start wearing track-suits and smoking, and she'd get pregnant instantly.

Weird-O | October 19, 2007, 8:02am | #

I'd hit it. [Dodges vegetables thrown by audience.]

Bronwyn | October 19, 2007, 8:35am | #

Lots of girls have sex while in middle school because they mistake sex for love.

Hello, nail. Meet hammer.

As the mother of a 7-month old (and therefore just days away from sexual predatorhood) son, I'm just as terrified. How will I get the message through to him, through the storm of peer pressure with which he'll be surrounded?

The message will NOT be, "just carry a condom son" and it will certainly not be, "oh no worries, she's probably on the pill anyway!"

I can't believe they can just hand out bc pills like that. stubby's absolutely right about "the pill", too. They're not candy and getting the right one for your physiology is no easy task.

Never mind the fact that an 11-year old girl has an immature reproductive system. Yes, her system may be mature enough to be fertilized but a child's hormone levels won't level out for years... if ever (hot flashes at 30, anyone?). To screw with that delicate hormonal balance before it's even mature is just asking for trouble down the road. The long-term medical implications are horrific to even think about.