ACLU: Children should have secret abortions, schools should facilitate
I wish I was making it up. Sadly, I’m not.
What is nearly as sick is how this alleged “journalist” reports the “facts.”
Two legal groups are asking the Vista Unified School District to change a controversial policy that requires teenagers to get parental consent to leave campus for confidential medical services.
Lawyers say California allows young people to leave campus without telling their parents to deal with a reproductive health matter, sexual, mental or substance abuse issues.
Propaganda is just as much about what is not said as what is said.
Email This
Posted by Greg Scott on March 12, 2009 11:16 pm
» Filed Under ACLU, Abortion, Child Exploitation, Education, Indoctrination, Infanticide, Journalistic Malpractice, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Parenting, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Social Engineering, feminism
Trackback URL:
- More Still More Neverending Story [Dan Collins] pinged this post.
- ACLU - Children Should Have Secret Abortions and Schools Should Help « Colorado Right pinged this post.
- Right Truth: ACLU: Children should have secret abortions, schools should facilitate...
- Pursuing Holiness: Shocking Entirely Predictable...
- Violation Of Parental Consent « Rosemary’s News and Ideas pinged this post.
- Rosemary's Thoughts: Violation Of Parental Consent...
- A counter question on abortion to all the relativist and nihilist who like to define the debate and the opposition. « The Western Experience pinged this post.
Comments
15 Responses to “ACLU: Children should have secret abortions, schools should facilitate”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
What I noticed further were the other criteria that CA state law allows schools to keep from parents. Mental and substance abuse issues? That is almost as bad as the whole “abortion” notification, which is beyond the pale. There is no justification for this law, and it violates the precept of “parental responsibility.”
California has it backward, and I expect this trend to go national under the Obama administration, unless people speak out against it. Thanks for posting this one.
I’m preparing a post about Randi Weingarten, who happened to be my girlfriend’s daughter’s teacher, back in the ’80’s.
Notice the one issue that Obama has “gone against” the union was merit pay, and they caved. They are going to get all kinds of payback, with ideological support for policies like California’s. It’s all about expanding control, and the payroll.
MAY HEAVEN HELP US>
“Propaganda is just as much about what is not said as what is said.”
And sometimes more.
Is there a link for this article?
Cheesestick, the link is in the word “not” of the first sentence.
oh. That’s PBS/NPR. It’s not fair to hold them to journalistic standards. It’s not what they do.
It’s nice to see that you do discuss the ACLU here occasionally.
I think it’s great that the ACLU is fighting for the rights of these children under California law.
If you don’t like the state law, then lobby to have it changed.
Anyone under the age of 18 who is still living with their parents or legal guardian MUST get permission for these things. The school is reposnsible for the welfare of these children and would definitely get sued if a child left to get any medical procedure done without the parents’ permission and was then harmed in some way. The ACLU is setting up the school to get sued by parents.
If a state told me that my child could do these things without my permission or knowledge, then I would tell the state they can support my child. He would imeediately become an imancipated minor, so I wouldn’t be held responsible for his mistakes.
The position of the ACLU seems to be that the natural relationship of children to their parents is an adversarial one where they are constantly at risk for harm and abuse. This is evident in their continued efforts to intervene, not necessarily when events occur, but in advance to “protect” children from the harmful designs of their parents and insert the benign correction of the state. To allow parents knowledge of the actions of the children they house, feed and clothe or to allow them undue influence in the teaching of their religious, political or moral values seems to frighten them enormously.
I pity any parents trying to raise children in California.
Not just the ACLU, but California law recognizes that some parents have unhealthy attitudes regarding teen sexuality. Some parents voice their disapproval of teen sex, then provide no encouragement for teens to make responsible choices when they do become sexually active. Their children may be understandably reluctant to involve parents in their reproductive healthcare.
In a perfect world all parents would have realistic attitudes regarding teen sexuality. In such a world teens would not need to hide their reproductive healthcare from their parents. Since such a world will never exist, some teens need to be able to take care of themselves without interference from their parents.
I pity any teens whose parents deny them the resources they need to protect themselves against STIs and pregnancy.
And I pity any fool who would inject themselves into my family life, when not invited and have no business being!
Arium, I am assuming that your comment is satire.
So let’s play mad libs with this. Teens are approximately as likely to have sex as they are to drink alcohol, if I remember my statistics correctly. The two behaviors both have potential consequences that are equally damaging to the child, up to and including death. So what if we replaced all the words about sexuality with words about alcohol in Arium’s comment?
“Not just the ACLU, but California law recognizes that some parents have unhealthy attitudes regarding teen _drinking_. Some parents voice their disapproval of teen _alcohol consumption_, then provide no encouragement for teens to make responsible choices when they do _go out and drink_. Their children may be understandably reluctant to involve parents in their _drinking behavior_.
“In a perfect world all parents would have realistic attitudes regarding teen _alcohol use_. In such a world teens would not need to hide their _drinking behavior_ from their parents. Since such a world will never exist, some teens need to be able to take care of themselves without interference from their parents.”
Does that sound reasonable? As the mother of four children ages 18 months to 21 years, I don’t think so. I make clear to my children the minimal behavior I expect of them, and also describe to them the consequences, both from their parents and from the much more unforgiving world, that can ensue from irresponsible behavior. That’s my job as a parent. No school had better ever take that right away from me.
Greg: No, it’s not satire.
Many years ago I had a serious relationship in high school. Our parents objected to teen sex, so we went in with the intention of following their wishes. Eventually (shortly before our 17th birthdays) our urges got the better of us, and we started having sex. Since we both were afraid of being caught with birth control, and neither had been exposed to sex ed that instilled the importance of birth control, we took stupid risks. Even after her sister got pregnant we still took risks.
We were lucky. My girlfriend’s sister wasn’t so lucky. Adults should know better than to force our teens to rely on luck. That some people would use STIs and pregnancy to punish teens for what they consider to be sinful behavior is morally reprehensible.
Jamie: The main problems I see with the drinking analogy are 1) that we can restrict teens’ access to alcohol more effectively than we can restrict their access to each other, and 2) a desire to drink is learned; the urge for sex is spontaneous.
“I make clear to my children the minimal behavior I expect of them, and also describe to them the consequences, …”
I have no problem with this. Where we might part ways is if you intentionally withhold information that would allow them to minimize the consequences in case/when their urges get the better of them. (95% of Americans have sex before marriage.) In my opinion this would be child abuse.
Arium–
Not only are your comments self-contradictory, they have little relevance to the post.
“Since we both were afraid of being caught with birth control, and neither had been exposed to sex ed that instilled the importance of birth control”
So which is it? Did you know about birth control or not? This sentence contradicts itself.
“Even after her sister got pregnant we still took risks.”
Oh, so you DID know how one gets pregnant. You DID know that unprotected sex was “risky!” And you knew this even without comprehensive sex ed! Amazing!
“Adults should know better than to force our teens to rely on luck.”
Ummmmmmmm, wuh? I thought you KNEW how one got pregnant. No “luck” involved here.
“That some people would use STIs and pregnancy to punish teens for what they consider to be sinful behavior is morally reprehensible.”
“Where we might part ways is if you intentionally withhold information”
More contradiction. Do you want kids to have this information or not? Sex frequently leads to STDs and/or pregnancy…in fact, sex is the ONLY way this happens! So do you want to withhold that information or is the truth a “punishment” that kids shouldn’t have to endure while they are dealing with their “urges?”
“we can restrict teens’ access to alcohol more effectively than we can restrict their access to each other”
Uh, yeah, right. Most kids can get a bottle of Jack — and a bag of weed or an eight ball for that matter — a lot easier than they can score. How is this relevant anyway?
I simply couldn’t ignore all of the bizarre things you have written and about which I have commented above.
However, nothing you have written is relevant at all to the topic about which I posted. The issue here is a school making the correct decision in notifying parents if these CHILDREN wish to leave campus. The school is properly protecting itself, the children under its charge and the interests of the parents to which they are responsible. The ACLU is dead wrong to threaten the school district for its completely responsible policy.
“Sex ed” is NOT the issue here, so I’m not sure why you have rabbit trailed. You are so gung ho about children having “information,” but it seems you may not hold parents’ right to information in equal regard.