Relinquishing Parental Control
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The Portland, Maine School Committee approved a plan that allows the health center of King Middle School to provide birth control pills and patches to students in the sixth grade. Parental consent or knowledge is not required. In fact, it is outlawed. Under Maine state law, once a parent has signed a waiver allowing a child to be treated at a school clinic in case of sickness or injury, specific treatment is “confidential.” Students decide for themselves whether to tell their parents about the services they receive. So, if Susie gets mom and dad to sign off on seeing the nurse for a headache she can get contraception services on the side.
Additionally, students have as young as 11 have been given condoms by the school since 2002.
Duped by worst-case-scenario logic, some parents have lost common sense. They have relinquished their rights and responsibilities to the state either out of laziness, lack of concern, stupidity or a combination of the above.
Richard Verrier is a parent in the Portland School district. “If my daughter were not able to talk with me about something, if she couldn’t reach me for whatever reason, to keep her safe and healthy, I would want to make sure she had access to those resources from trusted adults.” Mr. Verrier’s idea of a trusted adult is questionable. In the real world, a trusted adult does not give an eleven-year-old girl a birth control pill when the little girl comes to his office saying she is about to have sex and can’t reach her daddy. In this case, a trusted adult either makes contact with the parents or calls Child Services. If he can’t reach Child Services, he calls 9-1-1.
Mr. Verrier’s idea of a trusted adult is based on socialist principles. He has blind faith in the state to look out for the best interests of the children. We can only assume he has absolute confidence that the trusted adult in question will also make sure his eleven-year-old daughter never misses a day on the pill. He has equal confidence that the trusted adult will help his little girl make “wise” choices about which guys to sleep with or even the ones that don’t have a sexually transmitted disease. After all, in this twilight zone where it takes a village to raise a child, only the state knows the confidential fact that the little girl is having sex and taking pills. That should be good enough for the likes of Hillary Clinton when she claims it takes a village to raise a child. What better village than your local government agency that does so many other things right and daily shows it’s caring and compassion for individuals?
The good news is that a majority of other parents are in shock, “I just don’t know how we can even look at this and consider it,” said Diane Miller, also from Maine.
The answer to her confusion is simple. Thanks to the radical agenda of Planned Parenthood, what still sounds absurd to her has become the norm for others.
Planned Parenthood has convinced public school bureaucrats and some parents that more contraception in schools means less teen “pregnancy” (meaning teen “births”), and this is all that matters. They fail to say that more contraception also means more promiscuity (What happens when a teacher gives an adolescent male a handful of colored condoms? What about the psychological impact of having sex at such a young age? And what about loss of self respect?), and that more promiscuity always translates into more abortion. They don’t bother to do this kind of math, because in their twilight zone, not all numbers (human beings) have the same value. Besides who could rightfully argue that more teens giving birth is acceptable? Nobody in their right mind would argue that. However, this is another case of unintended consequences taking root that these progressive thinkers fail to consider or even want to consider.
Would you want your children to be counseled by government bureaucrats and given contraceptives? What is the proper role of the government here? Because some parents seem to want the schools and government to take care of their children should the rest of us just sit back and let it happen? What do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Interestingly, many parents at the school board meeting could see the board was going to pass the measure. They asked for a procedural fix on the permission slip. Parents asked that language be placed on the slip informing parents that once they signed the slip the children could receive treatment confidentially, including contraceptives without parental notification. The school board refused this request.
The fact that the board refused to add simple language onto the slips is confusing….yet, very telling about their real agenda…to remove parental control in place of the well meaning school (government) and empower the children. This is a classic move to remove parental influence for that of the all knowing and supposedly well informed school. It is as if educators see themselves as smarter than the rest of us who are rubes in their eyes.
Vote:
0 0 It seems that Maryland, along with many other states, already allow minors to receive BC w/out parental consent.
“The number of births to mothers under 15 in Maryland has dropped from 225 in 1995 to 113 in 2005, the most recent year available. In Baltimore, there were 113 births to girls under 15 in 1995, and 44 in 2005.
Dr. Laurie S. Zabin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said she disagrees with critics who say the availability of contraception encourages sexual activity.
“I don’t really think that the primary objection that the public has holds any water — that it encourages sex,” Zabin said. “It’s sort of like (saying) the availability of seat belts causes more traffic accidents. The availability of contraception does not cause risky sex.”
So, I wonder if Idaho is one of the states that allows minors access to BC w/out parental consent?
Vote:
0 0 I agree its wrong to hand out birth control to 11 year olds.
But one thing is factually wrong that Mike states. He says that kids who are given birth control are more promiscuous than those who are not. In fact repeated independent studies have found that there is no difference in the sexual activity of kids who receive comprehensive sex ed (including access to birth control) and those who don’t.
Vote:
0 0 Rather than discuss the matter that you promote distrust of “the state” I would just like to point out a logical fallacy you discussed in your second to last paragraph. You say that “more contraception also means more promiscuity” and yet you fail to realize that the reason these programs exist in the first place is because of teen sex, pregnancy and promiscuity. It’s circular; promiscuity promotes contraception which promotes promiscuity with promotes contraception and so on and so forth. This is what is know as a cirucular fallacy. I’m not saying that your argument is invalid and should be given less merit but your reasoning behind it needs some more thought. More to the topic, it does disgust me that this is happening in the sixth grade. When I was in the sixth grade I was scared to even hold a girl’s hand let alone think of fornicating with one!
Vote:
0 0 That’s a little much! for you to be scared to death to hold a girls hand in 6th grade, you must have been quite the late bloomer. I’m 48 y/o and I was having my Mom drop me off at the movie theatre to watch a movie with a girl. (or so they thought. But what we were doing was making out in the back row.) But I digress…
The point is, in this day and age kids are maturing a much younger age then they did at my age and most adults over 40’s age. That’s a fact. And although we don’t like to see it happen and nobody wants their child to grow up that fast, it happens. And all we can do is TALK to our kids. TALKING to your kids is what makes all the difference in the world. So many parents dont take the time to TALK to their kids, and that in turn causes these issues to arise at such a young age.
I’d rather condoms be available to my child, then have him or her make a mistake that may ruin their life. (or at least change it drastically)
As long as their not pushing them on the children I have no problem with it, because I have had those talks with my kids and while one of them is still a pre-teen, I’m STILL talking to her about it.
Did I mention TALKING to your kids?
You’re only relinquishing control IF relinquish control. Talking to your kids BEFORE their teachers, pastors, priests, THE TV, or whoever does, puts the control in your court, not theirs. Teaching them the facts of life and not making sex so taboo and so dirty will keep the control in your court. Respect your children and realize their growing up in a completely different society then the way we did. Listen to your children and be in every aspect of their life. Stop letting the tv babysit them and teach them about life, because that is where they get the majority of garbage fed to them each and every day. From watching Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton get nonstop news coverage for being skanky ho’s and lowlifes. TV glorify’s that behavior and children grow up thinking thats how their supposed to act.
Not in MY household!
Vote:
0 0 Sorry JoseCuervo, It may have just been the way I was raised in the Mormon church that kept me so timid. I agree with your comment though, maybe it’s time the parents took an active role in the child’s life and just talked to them
Vote:
0 0 Would we have a problem with a school nurse encouraging safe sex when an accident occurred–and a pregnancy ensued–to encourage abortion, or perhaps involve school authorities in promoting adoption? At what point do we say to government officials get out of our families lives?
BTW-Good post Cuervo on taking time to actually talk to kids. Getting their trust and making it easier for them to talk to us is a wonderful idea and stops alot of problems before they start.
Vote:
0 0 I’m all for sex education. But passing out contraception is not sex education.
Vote:
0 0 Mike, your relentless subtext about socialism, the likes of Hillary Clinton, government bureaucrats, etc. etc. is unfortunate since it undermines the credibility of what you’re saying.
Not everything can be neatly packed into a blind dualistic world view of progressive or conservative. I actually agree with your basic viewpoint but I think could could stand to practice improving your ability to look at things without your political pop-bottle goggles on. Remember that some things are true and some things are false no matter who says them.
Would you you seriously be more in favor of a 6th grader receiving birth control pills without parental notification if such “counseling” was outsourced to a private company?
Vote:
0 0 No need for outsourcing. It shouldn’t be happening at all–parents should reserve this right. The government has no business raising our kids for us, nor should it try to raise them for us. Otherwise, we might as well have thousands of orphanages without parental involvement. And yes, it is about the power of the state over reaching in this case–”Remember that some things are true and some things are false no matter who says them.”
Vote:
0 0 Guest_5555, I disagree with your attempt to marginalize Mike’s point: the fact is, we are talking about state action; this isn’t an isolated case of a private school prescribing birth control. This is a state-run, state-funded school program. As such, it is “the state” making important decisions in lieu of parental involvement. It is also an unfortunate example of parents failing to accept some of the many, many responsibilities that come with having children.
I think Mike stated his point well.
Vote:
0 0 Is the undercurrent here a disconnect between the way things should be and the way things really are?
As I understand it, the point is to tackle the problem of teen pregnancies and STDs.
Universities provide student health centers not because universities believe in charity, but because they are businesses and it is good business to keep your customers healthy enough to keep going to school (and paying fees).
If public education were completely privatized (as some think it should be), this type of thing would be implemented in a heartbeat! The reason is that too many students each year derail their educations because of the consequences of sexual activities. If public education were privatized, kids even younger than 11 would be getting free access to as much birth control as they can use.
Yes, kids should feel comfortable talking to their parents about this. Unfortunately they are not all comfortable. I would hope my kids would be comfortable enough to talk to me about this, but if they are not then I would rather have them able to get birth control behind my back than not able to get it at all, and have their lives derailed as a result.
Yes, it seems outlandish that parents may not be able to find out what their kids get, but you must recognize that confidentiality is the heart of this issue. If the kids think there is a way their parents could find out about it, then there is no point to offering the services because the kids would not trust it and would not use it.
I think our society would be better off investing more time in offering healthy youth activities and opportunities to build our youth’s self confidence than conducting witch hunts on who is getting what and where and how.
Vote:
0 0 Joe, I agree with your points as well; I think the point of Mike’s post was that this is happening, at least in the Maine school district referenced, in MIDDLE SCHOOL. Kids that age really shouldn’t be given encouragement for choices they can’t possibly be ready for.
Vote:
0 0 Kids start puberty and their sexual curiosities at that age now, so how long do we wait?
How can this system help kids protect themselves and not be seen as encouraging sex?
Vote:
0 0 I don’t think their being “encouraged”. But merely given the means to protect themselves from pregnancy, std’s, etc. if they choose to be sexually active. You can’t be with your children 24/7, so would you rather they be protected from pregnancy or std’s or come home one night with bad news?
Once again it comes down to the parents and their everyday involvement in every aspect of their childrens lives. If a young person is completely informed by their parents, older siblings, etc., they tend to make better choices than those that are brought up not talking about these things and being taught that sex and the exploration of their sexuality is bad and forbidden until a certain age. Like everything else, kids will only be more curious and end up making bad choices that will ruin their lives or at best, make them more difficult than they need to be. Educate your children about sex at an early age or else somebody else will, which usually results in misinformation and bad choices. Its never too young to talk to your children about their bodies and the changes they will experience as they get older. When you talk to your children about these things at an early age, they’re naturally going to feel more comfortable coming to you as they get older and are faced with these issues. It will also lead to better overall communication between you and kids.
Vote:
0 0 Joe,
The problem is that your post begs the question of whether it’s the “system’s” job to protect kids when it comes to sex.
Vote:
0 0 Good point, it is not inherently their job, but it becomes their job.
How so? Is a university inherently in the business of providing healthcare? Of course not, but they have discovered it is good business practice to setup on campus health centers, pay for docs and nurses, and have on campus pharmacies to treat students. Seeing a doctor is also subsidized by the university so students are encouraged to visit the docs. Doing this is good business because it keeps the school’s customers (students) going to classes.
Are public schools in the business of immunizations? No, and they cannot provide immunizations, but they require immunizations because the alternative is their customers (students) get sick and cannot go to school. Let’s remember that schools lose money the more kids that miss school.
I foresee if education goes privatized that birth control will be REQUIRED for all students 10 and over, because the business wants their customers.
No, it is not the school’s job to protect kids from sexual consequences. But until kids quit becoming sexually curious and kids quit being too embarrassed to talk to their parents, schools are finding it is good business to protect those kids. It’s not their job, but it is good business practice for schools to do this.
Vote:
0 0 Joe, I see your point about the economics or “business practice” of the whole matter. I still disagree about the middle school aspect; kids out here start middle school at 11. Old enough for sex education? Sure, (although I will add for Jose’s benefit, my kids already know about sex, as I have always discussed these issues with them. And yes, it was awkward for all concerned but I consider it part of the job.)
Old enough for contraception? Absolutely not.
I think it is up to the parents, by the way, to take that step, as I agree that kids can be too embarassed to ask questions; that’s why I have initiated discussions and why it is so important for all parents to do the same, rather than sloughing off one more responsibility onto the state.
Vote:
0 0 Good points Babs!
“Educate your children about sex at an early age or else somebody else will, which usually results in misinformation and bad choices.”, another Good point Cuervo.
While it is admirable that the schools are trying to ‘help’out. They need to butt out.
Just because someone else is a lousy parent does not justify the schools trying to come in and take over my parental rights and responsibilities. Too often, this shotgun approach is used by school administrators and other government officials. So, if we accept this type of logic, when certain small select groups go out and misuse guns then they will try and take everyone’s guns away. It doesn’t wash.
Remember, these are the same types of school administrators in places like Boulder, Colorado, where speakers are brought in at assemblies to encourage students to use illegal drugs and have sex–including not using condoms if one doesn’t have to! I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t heard the recording.
These are also the same school administrators that suspended a 7 year old boy yesterday for drawing a picture of a stick figure holding what appeared to be a gun. Nothing else in the picture–that’s it–and the kid is suspended. So, for all the supposedly ‘wise business choices’ these folks supposedly make it seems more and more about a politically correct agenda to remove parental control and put in place more ‘progressive’ types of thought and control.
Be careful, before we know it schools will be allowed and encouraged to exert more control over our children. Little Johnny will cease to be our child and will be molded and shaped with values and morals (or lack thereof)that we don’t agree with.
As far as a business decision goes, if public schools continue to try to usurp parental roles I believe public schools will see a decline in attendance. More home schooling and/or private school attendance will be the result–in fact, that may not be such a bad thing after all. Wouldn’t it be better for Little Johnny to learn about biology as a science rather than the latest and greatest contraceptives? For any talk about sex education it does involve morals and boundaries. I don’t want government authorities implanting my kids with their morals–in some cases we may share the same moral view…however, in some cases we may not. This is what is dangerous about having school officials go beyond their mandate. Would Joe be upset if his kids were given moral advice by a staunch Conservative Christian that people who don’t believe in God are bad people? Or perhaps the conservative school official preached the mainstream moral view that gay relationships and sex is an unacceptable thing? I think we know the answer to that. People would be in an uproar. While many of us might agree with the above, how about other parents that would be offended by such talk. Most people would rightly ask, “What right does the government (school) have to be doing this?” They would be correct. The point of discussion on this topic is no different. The only difference is that those that support the school board decision had better be prepared. If we let the schools get away with this now be prepared for more to come–and depending on the political makeup of your school board and administration parents might get everything they asked for or just the opposite.
The bottom line is that politics should not be allowed to enter the school room anymore than we would have politics enter our bedroom, choice of partner, choice of job, type of clothes we wear, or what we choose to say. Parents have a right to raise their children anyway they want so long as abuse is not present. If government doesn’t like the results too bad-they have no right to intrude in this highly personal area.
Vote:
0 0 Check this video out: 14 year old girl expelled from school for the year. Her crime: She brought a butter knife to school-no threat-she is a good student with no disciplinary problems.
And these are the folks we want giving our kids advice on sexual matters?
Vote:
0 0 I see your point that you cannot trust the wisdom of schools in one area so you cannot trust them in any areas, but I think that is a bit off tangent. I see your point you made, but then why trust them at all? You have to trust them at some point, or homeschool them and you don’t have to care what they do.
As a former public school teacher, trust me when I say that schools are being forced to take care of problems today in which they do not want any role. Teachers want to teach their subjects, not mediate fights, suspend kids, demonstrate how drugs hurt you, or dispense contraceptives. Ask any teacher which they would rather do.
For example, why should schools offer sports programs? Why should schools involve themselves in boosting self-esteem? Why should they provide anti-drug education? These have nothing to do with the core academics, but they are done because the distracting harm is washed out by the overwhelming good business decisions they provide. Schools doing these things help keep kids in school longer.
“Just because someone else is a lousy parent does not justify the schools trying to come in and take over my parental rights and responsibilities.” Ok, then how about they do these programs for just the lousy parents? Will the lousy parents please step backward? What is the litmus test for identifying lousy parents? Do you want schools labeling you as a lousy parent if you do not trust them to even discipline properly?
Besides these points, I think it is unfair to say that only lousy parents have kids that become sexually active or get into trouble. I know many great families where a teenager got pregnant. The parents were not lousy, it was the teen making a human mistake.
…at 11. Old enough for sex education? Sure… Old enough for contraception? Absolutely not. OK, so what age then is it when the sexual activity begins? When do the gates open? Do we expect all kids to learn about sex then keep it bottled up until what age?
This is like showing your kid a gun, telling them it makes a cool loud noise and blasts things away like in the movies, but don’t practice with it until they are older, and by the way it is unlocked in this drawer at all times. Who would not be curious enough to pull it out of the drawer and play around to see what it can do? Same with sex! I think talking about what sex is and not discussing contraception is even more irresponsible than not discussing sex with your kids at all. It’s like teaching them to drive a car but not telling them about the brake.
I wish we lived in an ideal world where these things did not happen, but this is the real world. Kids do learn about sex from their media, their friends, and themselves. Kids do become sexually active without parents’ knowledge, and kids are often too embarrassed to talk to parents about it.
Vote:
0 0 While I am sure that there are teachers out there that would love to not have to get involved in “drama”…you are correct that they are confronted with it on a daily basis. However, what stops the teachers and administrators from actually working with parents instead of promoting more rights of the child and school to decide what is best for them (the children)?
The answer to that question is that the schools are usurping parental authority…and many parents are happy to give it away. I am not happy to give it away as are many other like minded parents. There is no litmus test for a lousy parent other than physical or sexual abuse. Neglect and the mental abuse that comes from it is harder to quantify. However, I firmly believe that in a world that is forcing children to grow up quicker than anyone would really want them to that the government cannot and should not get into the business of instilling morals and values. The government does not have the expertise in this area. If I were an administrator or teacher I am certain that there would be many topics you would not want me giving advice to your child about.(lol…I am certain of it!) It works both ways here. Also, try throwing Joe’s favorite topic into the mix: religion. Do we want LDS administrators telling our Catholic kids how to live their lives? How about Islamic administrators telling an atheistic child how to live their life? What a mess!
The topics we are discussing here are highly personal to the families involved and shape our children for the rest of their lives. I don’t want George Bush or Hillary Clinton types telling my kids how to live their lives and how to be successful in the world when it comes to morals and values. I want the schools to stick to their original mandate of educating kids in the basics. They can have sports and extracuricular activities to raise all the self-esteem in the world and instill fair play and sportsmanship. Nobody has had a problem with these types of values because they cut across the political spectrum as acceptable and non-threatening.
In the end, keeping the government out of being a moral advisor is just fine with me….now the question is: Will the majority of parents stand up for their rights and those of their families or will they simply hand yet another responsibility over to the government?
Vote:
0 0 This is a great topic Mike and many that have posted have made valid points on both sides. I agree with much of what Cuervo says in his post’s, that the responsibility lies with the parents and more parents need to open up those lines of communication at a very early age. Both Mike & Joe make good arguements and I can understand where both are coming from. Clearly we don’t want the government in our family’s lives anymore than is necessary. I don’t however feel that making protection available to them at a middle school age level is all that bad. Both sex and drug education was discussed while I was in middle school during the mid to late 70’s, so it’s not anything new to the public school system. Making protection available to children that age IS new. It’s definately a very fine line we’re walking here and unfortunately I fear that parents will not get involved enough to do anything about it and will once again hand over this issue to the government and our school system.
As noted in previous posts, talking with your children at an early age is key. Although Joe says that he knows “many great families where a teenager has gotten pregnant”, I don’t believe it’s the norm. I believe the more kids are educated about this issue at a young age, the less likely they are to get pregnant at an early age. And sure,as they may have sexual relations, but the more their educated, the more likely they are to use protection and use common sense. Just because a family looks great on the outside, doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve kept the lines of communication open with their children in regards to sex and sex education. And talking to your child once about the birds and the bees doesn’t cut it.
We’ve always talked to our children and had open “anything goes” discussions about everything. Even now with our 4 year old, we’ve been talking to her about her body and how she’s growing and developing for almost a year now. Which we’ll continue to do so as she gets older. We feel its very important that our children don’t feel embarassed to talk about this and other topics that may be embarrasing to some. The thing is they wont be embarrased if its a topic that’s been discussed regularly while growing up. It’s worked great with our 13y/o as he talks to us about everything. One minute he’s going on and on about his playstation games and the next he’s telling us about all the cute girls in school. Talk to your kids and educate them yourselves and you won’t have to worry about relinquishing your rights.
It’s unfortunate that not enough people these days actually take the time to really be parents to their children. But that’s a whole other post!
Vote:
0 0 Here is another bone head move by a member of a school board in Massachusetts. Of additional note, this story proves its not only Democrats with stupid ideas about how to administer educational programs. This school board member, Steven Edwards, wants to grade parents on whether they take care of their kids needs (breakfast, clothing, timeliness, etc). When will the government just butt out?
Edwards says parents aren’t properly preparing their kids for school. He’s proposed evaluations on whether parents get their children to class on time, ensure their kids have completed their homework each night and attend the twice-yearly parent-teacher conferences about the children’s report cards and academic progress.
The other two categories — which Edwards admitted are more a matter of interpretation — would give parents a positive or negative grade depending on whether their children seem to have been fed an adequate breakfast and are appropriately dressed for the weather.
Edwards proposes that these discussions on perceptions held by teachers be brought up at twice a year parent teacher conferences. Why do we need to ‘grade’ parents? Further, why wait until parent teacher conferences? Why not just talk about it throughout the year–or do we need to have more bureaucracy involved?
Vote:
0 0 I believe people shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce UNTIL they have taken parenting classes. There are way too many idiots out there having children with NO clue on how to raise them. Those children in turn grown up to have children of their own (at a very young age mind you) and the vicious cycle continues.
I can’t even begin to count the amount of idiotic parents that I have personally witness bring their children, YOUNG children mind you… to heavy metal rock concerts, beerfest, horror movies, etc. Not to mention the garbage you see them buying their kids as you look in their shopping carts walking through WalMart. And they have the nerve to call it food!
So yeah….some people DO need government interaction when it comes to raising their children.
So yeah, I’m all for it. There’d be alot less idiotic people in this world and we’d all be alot better off.
Vote:
0 0 I agree. The grading of parents is a lame idea. What would the consequences be if the parent got a bad grade? I don’t see what it would accomplish. Those parents that would “fail” probably aren’t going to care that much and won’t do anything to change their habits. The ones that “pass” are going to continue on the way they always have. I see this as a stepping stone to the gov’t moving in and taking over the children — then what? The children would all be raised in a gov’t installation? Isn’t there already a law where if teachers see or expect abuse they are to notify the proper authorities?
Maybe all prospective parents should be required to take parenting classes and pass “child readiness” before becoming parents. All newborns would be implanted with some type of “anti-birth” device that could only be surgically removed when they passed the required tests. This is no more “far out” than what a lot of the proposed legislation is. In fact, IMO makes more sense.
Vote:
0 0 I hear ya Jose’! I agree 100%. We already have the government in every other aspect of our lives, why not for the good of the children? I’ve witnessed everything JoseC has and more probably, and it blows my mind to see people that in no way should be having children, reproduce and end up on welfare and food stamps and have no idea how to raise a family in a healthy enviroment.
Why not bring the government in?
Or at least make parenting clases mandatory in school.
Vote:
0 0 The kids are “graded” in school, so why not grade the parents too? I’m all for it. I too have witnessed many an unfit parent. I think it’s a great idea! If the parents make excellent passing grades say 3 years in a row, then their exempt from future “gradings”. If the parents make a failing grade, then make parenting clases mandatory.
Makes perfect sense to me!
Vote:
0 0 I think Cuervo and Slim have good intentions in their posts. They obviously have identified what alot of us see….so called parents doing dumb things…and not sacrificing for their kids. It boils down to these so called parents being lazy and self-centered and really avoiding what it takes to be a parent.
However, the next step identified here is scary…
“We already have the government in every other aspect of our lives, why not for the good of the children?”
IMO, this type of thinking leads us into the “cradle to grave” mentality. The government will begin taking over every element of our lives. Americans will cede responsibility to someone else. Bureaucrats will tell you how to live your life and raise your kids. This shotgun approach is being practiced and accepted by too many Americans. Look at all the residents of New Orleans that gave their guns up to police after Hurricane Katrina hit. They seemed to think that the police could and would protect them….we all know what the results were….and how the crime problem, including murder has skyrocketed down there.
It would seem that in the debate we have well meaning people trying to desperately find solutions to complex problems. The end result always seems to land on the doorstep of government. I would ask Cuervo–How much government interaction would be acceptable to you? Voluntary Parenting classes? Mandatory Parenting classes? Mandatory Home Visits by Government to check the children out? Mandatory foods to feed kids? Curfews for kids when parents can’t take them out of the home? Fines and/or jail for parents who don’t tow the government line in child rearing. Feed your kid boxed pizza with no vegetables–it will cost ya $50.00. How about divorced parents not allowed to date so they could put all their time and energy into the children? Don’t laugh now, I can see some government worker thinking this baloney up and trying to implement it….all in the name of what’s good for the children. Now who could argue against that?
I don’t have a problem with mandatory parenting classes for persons seeking public assistance. However, allowing the government into all of our family lives, without provocation or established societal interest,in a proven dysfunctional situation, is a recipe for disaster. The way the country is heading it seems like many want to just pass the buck to someone else. Whether it is schools, parenting, health care, protecting the environment, and/or crime prevention the message seems to be the same: let the government handle it because we can’t or won’t.
That old adage: Give the government and inch and they’ll take a mile sounds pretty apt right now.
Vote:
0 0 …wants to grade parents on whether they take care of their kids needs…
That’s what I was saying about having to offer the birth control to all kids, or else the schools will have to decide who the bad parents are so they can offer the BC to only those kids. Silly ehh?
…I believe people shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce UNTIL they have taken parenting classes…
Oh, so you DO support giving the birth control to all these kids ehh? I think that was the school’s idea, to stop the “vicious” cycle.
Just wondering if some of the folks here clamoring for “parental classes” have kids of their own? Most parents know that no class can prepare you for the dynamic interactions which is parenthood.
Believe it or not, most parents really do try to do the best they can. They at least talk to other parents about what is and is not working. I don’t know what it is that makes some of these parents so bad, whether they do not try hard enough or what.
Vote:
0 0 I support parenting classes, especially for those mothers that plan on using our welfare system. I have kids of my own, all but one are grown up and out of the house and doing well. But I see lousy parents every day and I honestly don’t believe their trying the best they can. If you don’t see them everyday like I do, then you’re either living in a cave, or you don’t get out enough. I believe their are a number of factors involved in being lousy parents and it’s pretty evident without actually going into the persons home to witness how they raise their children. There are more obese children in our country then ever before. There are more school shootings in the US than ever before. There are more out of control children than ever before. Parent’s just don’t bother to discipline their children or they don’t know how.
I remember taking a child development class in the 9th grade back in the 70’s. It wasn’t mandatory, but it was offered. And it was very informative. Personally I think it should be mandatory in this day and age.
I believe classes CAN prepare you for parenthood. After all, it’s not rocket science. But for many, it is difficult and many parents really don’t have a clue. Sure, you can’t learn everything about raising a child from a book, but you can learn the basics and so many of these people out there NEED to learn the basics. Why are these kids SO obese….the parents! Why are these kids shooting up the schools….the parents! Why are so many kids getting in trouble in school, throwing tantrums, acting out, getting expelled, getting pregnant at 11 & 12 y/o??? Thats right….it’s THE PARENTS! And their lack of committment, knowledge and quality time spent raising their children. I say don’t have children if you can’t put in the time, the money, the patience, the nuturing and the discipline needed to raise them.
Look at the guy that was in the news a week or two ago, living on a mountain in tents with his 12 children because he lost everything and couldn’t afford to provide for them. That right there is poor parenting. It’s child abuse and it’s selfishness. NOBODY needs 12 kids. Especially if you can’t even afford to give them the basics. It may be cruel, but it’s true and I see it all the time. So yeah, I’m all for grading parents, just like our kids our graded. Why do you think so many kids make bad grades? It’s because the parents don’t take the time to sit down with their kids and help them with their school work. And most of the time the parents are smart enough to help them with their school work and that in itself is sad. All you have to do it watch an episode of “Are you smarter than a 5th grader” and you’ll see how many people from all walks of life can’t answer 3rd, 4th and 5th grade questions. It’s sad, and unfortunately it’s become the norm in this country. So it’s a resounding YES for me….if that’s what it takes to get our parents active in our childrens lives, then I wholeheartedly agree that their needs to be some government interaction. Because it’s obvious many can’t do it on their own. And I’m not talking about the government going into peoples houses like Mike suggests. We all know how he likes to blow everything out of proportion. But something needs to be done because we’ve been on a downhill slide for the past 20+ years.
Vote:
0 0 “We all know how he likes to blow everything out of proportion.”
Thanks for the personal attack Aunt Rose. I will debate ideas all day long. Just because you don’t happen to agree with my ideas doesn’t mean you should take open season on my credibility.
You note that you see lousy parents all the time. You also note mandatory classes are welcome in your book. I don’t think most of us on this thread are far off about wanting more parental involvement in children’s lives. However, our society has done a lousy job at promoting parental involvement. Our society has also allowed our culture of self reliance, personal responsibility, and self-sacrifice to be replaced by a culture of victim hood (no personal responsibility–it’s not my fault for the choices I make), and instant self-gratification. Couple that with a desire by many people to simply kick back and be taken care of by somebody else and you have a classic case of people looking for the government sugar daddy.
You don’t fix these problems by making people take a parenting class and more government involvement. Government’s proper role is to provide a level playing field for everyone and provide incentives for acceptable behavior that improves lives of it’s members.
Many problems lies in our blind acceptance of cultural norms that are replaced by moral relativism-anything goes.
If you stand up against music that calls women bitches and hoes or uses the N word you aren’t in favor of free speech. If you stand up against unfettered access to birth control you aren’t looking out for children. If you stand up against tired policies like affirmative action you’re racist. Society tells us that we should just all be neutral and not enforce our belief system on others. This “neutrality” is killing our society and killing our kids abilities to live better because we accept anything and everything as okay to not make waves and offend anyone. (Sounds kind of like parents inability or unwillingness to discipline their children, doesn’t it?)
Now if I am blowing this all out of proportion then why do we have all the problems you cited and some that I see: increased school shootings, teen pregnancies, lack of respect for elders and authority figures, dismal high school graduation rates in parts of the United States, and obesity on the rise to name a few. Yes, we have been on a downhill slide the last 20 years.
Using the government as an instrument of social change is like asking the Captain of the Titanic to turn the ship on a dime and avoid the iceberg. We have seen a departure from the kind of liberalism espoused by Franklin Roosevelt that still encompased family values, hard work, sacrifice, and enforcement of societal norms to the Lyndon Johnson Great Society era of bigger government handouts, lax morals, and evasion of personal responsibility.
Our government was set up on principles involving checks and balances avoiding tyranny of the majority. However, it used to do a better job enforcing principles like “One Nation Under God” and the “Pledge of Allegiance” that the majority wanted–and that did not amount to a state sponsor of religion. Government has retreated on these and other fronts in favor of a lack of recognition what the majority saw as important.
Government ends up sitting on the fence and not being able to direct policies for the greater good without influences of special interest groups. So, you can have all the parenting classes and counseling in the world but it will not address the issue that government has largely become more of a problem rather than a solution to societal problems. One can’t blow out of proportion that we are going down the tubes because we have turned over so much of our day to day lives to a huge uncaring governmental giant. It is truly insane to think that if we continue down this same path of handing government more control, thus continuing to erode personal rights, freedoms and the responsibilities that come with them that our children will be better off than we were.
Vote:
0 0 So what would your solution be Mike? Since parents can’t seem to get it right and our government souldn’t be involved, what other suggestions can you offer. Because after all, things are and have been getting worse over the years, not better.
Please tell us how YOU would fix the problem?
Vote:
0 0 Not to put down Mike or anything as I do enjoy your discussions, but I think you do sometimes tend to blow some discussions out of proportion at times. In post 25, you offered your views on school board memeber Steven Edwards.
Many here thought his ideas on “grading the parents” were good ones. After all, isn’t our childrens nutrition, school work and being on time to classes the parents job? Many of which are failing!
Mike turns it around by stating (and here’s where the “blowing out of proportion comes into play”) and I quote ” How much government interaction would be acceptable to you? Voluntary Parenting classes? Mandatory Parenting classes? Mandatory Home Visits by Government to check the children out? Mandatory foods to feed kids? Curfews for kids when parents can’t take them out of the home? Fines and/or jail for parents who don’t tow the government line in child rearing. Feed your kid boxed pizza with no vegetables–it will cost ya $50.00. How about divorced parents not allowed to date so they could put all their time and energy into the children?”
Nobody was suggesting fining parents 50 bucks for not feeding them their veggies, or keeping divorced parents from dating. That sir, is blowing things out of proportion. But what Edwards offered was grading parents via parent teacher conferences, our childrens academic progress, etc. That’s a far cry from “jail time for parents for not towing the government line in child rearing”.
So yes….you do tend to over exaggerate the issues at times. I and others think Edwards has some good ideas to turn things around. It’s worth a try at least.
Vote:
0 0 Here’s a story about a mother who tried something different to discourage her daughter from having sex:
http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/1026/pierce_ap.html
“A woman who had her 13-year-old daughter’s genitalia pierced to make it uncomfortable for her to have sex was acquitted of aggravated child abuse on Thursday.”
I’d rather have my kid on BC.
Vote:
0 0 Thanks for your post Cuervo. I understand better the point you are trying to make about blowing things out of proportion. My response is that when we abdicate our rights to the government and allow our rights and responsibilities to be assumed by the government we lose control of our abilities to parent our children and many other fundamentals of sacrosanct family life. I don’t believe that it is a stretch to suggest that government encroachment leads to an eventual take over of many things in our lives.
If one believes the logic exhibited here that there are lousy parents out there, therefore government involvement is justified, then we will all be in handing over our rights and responsibilities in so too many areas to count. Why? Because we all just want to do what is ‘right’ for the children. Nobody could be against that? Right?
The standard of what it takes for one to be considered a “lousy” parent can be subjectively interpreted by you, me, and government officials. Now we can agree that physical abuse and the like are objective measures but what about the other intangibles? Who decides this? If we allow government to intervene in the lives of other parents who we consider to be lousy what is to say the same cannot be done to us or our families soon thereafter? If we provide consent we lose our ability to parent our children how we deem proper.
This same type of logic is used by do-gooders like Tipper Gore. Remember her in the early 1990’s? She led a movement called the Parental Music Research Center. The PMRC was against vile forms of rap music, certain tv and other forms of communication that were no doubt objectionable. Who could be against ridding the music stores and air waves of racists or comments demeaning to women? Nobody would rightly oppose that, right? But the problem with good intentions is that if Tipper had gotten her way and had government get involved in banning rappers like 2 Live Crew, or censored tv and movies with gratuitious sexual scenes, that someone else would have been making decisions–subjective decisions–of what you and I could read, watch, or listen to. This is governmental incrementalism in action.
It seems all well and good on the surface. Yet, when we stop and examine how the government works in cases like this it is scary to think of what we are really giving up. Most people could identify with the axiom “Freedom of Speech” and Tippers demands went unmet. The First Amendment prevailed. Yet, what we see more and more in the United States is a willingness to turn our kids over to the government…or more accurately–turn other peoples kids over to the government. Is that the answer? And what happens when someone else decides to turn the tables on us because we are deemed a lousy parent?
**(Blown out of proportion alert)** What if the government changes course and defines lousy parents as parents that let their kids read the Quran? The Bible? Or Anton Lavey’s Satanic Bible? While many examples I utilize are admittedly extreme they can and do happen. If you will recall, an 8 year old boy was temporarily removed from his parents–the reason: he was overweight and they were feeding him foods (like donuts and fried chicken) that were deemed by Health & Welfare to cause him to be overweight!! Fortunately, after 10 days a custody hearing was held–the judge chastized the Department for abusing it’s authority and returned the boy to his parents!
This is the type of example that speaks to the fact that the only ones blowing things out of proportion are the government servants that don’t know how to raise kids any better than lousy parents. I want no part of a government solution in this area. Mr. Cuervo, you and I both know that nearly everyone on this thread at least has talked about the need for more parental involvement. Why then are most people on this thread doing a 180 degree turn and advocating that government should come to the rescue?
Vote:
0 0 Good post Mike! I see what you mean and I remember the whole Tipper Gore era with the music ban etc. In the beginning everyone was crying about the government taking our rights away from us and it was unjust and unfair and whatnot. But look at what happened. All that really happened was, now they have a little parental warning label on your CD which tells parents what has rude and crude lyrics on it. Personally I think it’s a great idea, and it helps me and other parents monitor what our kids listen to, without me having to listen to the whole album. AND it didn’t hurt the music industry one bit.
Now in the same sense, I cetainly don’t want the government telling me how to raise my children, but maybe having mandatory child development classes in high school will prevent that from happening. It certainly couldn’t hurt. I personally thought child services had every right to take that child away. I remember the story of that 8y/o and that to me that was child abuse. Certainly they could have handled it better, but parents like that should be reprimanded some way. Whether its madatory classes, nutritional classes or what have you. I mean c’mon, the kid was over twice the weight of an adult male. That is child abuse plain and simple. It’s like leaving your kid in the car in the middle of summer to run into the store. It’s inhumane and people should pay for their actions. Lines need to be drawn somewhere and if it’s twice a year at a PTA meeting, I’m all for it.
I do see your side though and you make a good case.
Vote:
0 0 **(Blown out of proportion alert)**
That’s hilarious, I’m going to have to start using that myself 8^)
Vote:
0 0 I must admit….that was good! 
Vote:
0 0 Aunt Rose asked Mike: Please tell us how YOU would fix the problem?
I think Mike has already answered that: making parents (and people!) more accountable…instilling a sense of personal responsibility…I can’t help but think that the WIC and welfare/food stamp system helped create some of this “learned helplessness”. I am all for helping the truly down and out, and do so quite regularly; I have a problem with people suggesting that if we create one more government program (HEY! Let’s grade the parents!!), one more way to lessen personal responsibility, we will “fix” the broken system. How about revamping the system and returning to our pre “20 year slide” in parenting (from Aunt Rose’s terminology), and understanding and respecting that we are all strong and capable and should be responsible for ourselves and our children? And not create yet another way to abdicate responsibility to the government? I most decidely do NOT want the government involved in my parenting decisions or in any manner “grading” me on the same. Mike is right: that is “scary”.
(And BTW, each state’s health and welfare system has an anonymous ‘child protection’ hotline for anyone to report truly abusive or neglectful parenting.)
Vote:
I was confused when I first read this news article today. In the first place, I think it sends the wrong message to dole out birth control for 11 to 13 year olds. And the other thing that I noticed was that I couldn’t find where it said that the parents of the children who received contraceptives were required to be informed.