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.

This is shocking. To threaten people who are charged with the care of our children with a lawsuit for violating the rights of these horrible men who prey on our young girls and get them pregnant and are pushed into seeking an abortion or to hide rape…..

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.

“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.

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!

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.

I pity any parents trying to raise children in California.