Smells like teen sex

[jayem]

Do sexually active minors have a right to privacy?

A Federal judge overruled Kansas AG Phil Kline's interpretation of a state law allowing doctors, counselors, school personnel, etc. to report to the state if they had knowledge of minors (under age 16, by Kansas law) were sexually active. The law's purpose was to allow investigation of possible child abuse. AG Kline's opinion was that the law required such reporting in all cases, even if the sex was likely consensual. So if a 15 year old went to a gynecologist requesting birth control, the doctor would be required, under threat of prosecution, to report the teen to the state. The judge ruled that this interpretation was way beyond the intent of the law, and that medical or other health/social service providers had some discretion in what was reportable. It was noted that some cases, i.e., signs of sexual activity in children 12 and under, or signs of abuse should always be reported.

This is a sensible ruling by the court. True conservatives should be troubled by the AG's extreme application of the law. I agree that minors should not be sexually active, and I'd generally agree that a parent, guardian, or some responsible adult should be aware. But, absent any suspicion of abulse or molestation, is this something the state needs to know? If a 14 year old boy asks a pharmacist for a pack of condoms, what business is it of the state of Kansas? I do think minors have some limited right to privacy--but requiring schools or health clinics, or social service agencies to be informants for the government is going way too far.


http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/14371818.htm

 

[CSmrw]

I would rather see all children given birth control than see them pregnant or dead. As far as privacy from the state, absolutely the health care professional should be given discretion.

 

[Ave Maria]

No they don't have a right to privacy when that right to privacy can cause an endangerment to their health or life. I am glad that this ruling was overturned.

 

[JGG]

No they don't have a right to privacy when that right to privacy can cause an endangerment to their health or life. I am glad that this ruling was overturned.

Well my gut says that a parent should know, but practically, it would backfire.

The reason teens are given this privacy is because they are going to have sex one way or another, and we would prefer that they use protection. Having parents (or worse yet the state) know that they're looking for protection is going to give them reason not to use protection, but still engage in sex. In the end we would rather they use protection than not, right?

They're going to have sex one way or the other, there's little we can do about that. What we need to do is give them every opportunity, and every reason to use protection.

In other words in order to get kids to use this protection it is imperative that they be given privacy about it. Keeping a government record is not privacy, and would undoubtedly result in more teen STDs, more unwanted teen pregnancies, and more abortions. Bad, bad, and bad.

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

No they don't have a right to privacy when that right to privacy can cause an endangerment to their health or life. I am glad that this ruling was overturned.

You may be misreading the OP. It used to be the law that doctor's had to report teen sex.

That has been overturned, and teens can now have privacy. Doctors are no longer required to report.

I am glad that the law has been overturned. All people have a right to privacy, even if that endangers health. Teens should be able to have sex, or eat a double cheeseburger, or smoke, all without having their parents be informed.

 

[Argent]

Do sexually active minors have a right to privacy?

A Federal judge overruled Kansas AG Phil Kline's interpretation of a state law allowing doctors, counselors, school personnel, etc. to report to the state if they had knowledge of minors (under age 16, by Kansas law) were sexually active. The law's purpose was to allow investigation of possible child abuse. AG Kline's opinion was that the law required such reporting in all cases, even if the sex was likely consensual. So if a 15 year old went to a gynecologist requesting birth control, the doctor would be required, under threat of prosecution, to report the teen to the state. The judge ruled that this interpretation was way beyond the intent of the law, and that medical or other health/social service providers had some discretion in what was reportable. It was noted that some cases, i.e., signs of sexual activity in children 12 and under, or signs of abuse should always be reported.

This is a sensible ruling by the court. True conservatives should be troubled by the AG's extreme application of the law. I agree that minors should not be sexually active, and I'd generally agree that a parent, guardian, or some responsible adult should be aware. But, absent any suspicion of abulse or molestation, is this something the state needs to know? If a 14 year old boy asks a pharmacist for a pack of condoms, what business is it of the state of Kansas? I do think minors have some limited right to privacy--but requiring schools or health clinics, or social service agencies to be informants for the government is going way too far.


http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/14371818.htm

I'm a conservative rightwing extremist evangelical fundamentalist Christian (some people say that like it's a bad thing ) and AG Kline was wrong, but no more wrong than liberal activist judges who think they know what's best for the country and create law from the bench instead of allowing the Congress and legislatures to do what we elected them to do. Kline needs to go and so do a lot of judges, and they will.

 

[JGG]

I'm a conservative rightwing extremist evangelical fundamentalist Christian (some people say that like it's a bad thing ) and AG Kline was wrong, but no more wrong than liberal activist judges who think they know what's best for the country and create law from the bench instead of allowing the Congress and legislatures to do what we elected them to do. Kline needs to go and so do a lot of judges, and they will.

What a strange thing to say...

 

[gweneviere]

I can't believe people think it's ok for doctors to keep parents from knowing about their children's medical history. Are we going to make parents stand outside the doctor's office for a rutine physical? Are we going to keep all medical records for teenagers private? Why does sexual activity get special treatment? Parents have every right to know what is going on with their children. This is how children are corrected and taught.

About them having sex anyway, that's a silly reason. If a parent knows where their child is at sexually, whether they are abstinent or promiscuous, they will better be able to raise their children.

If a 15 year old wants condoms or birth control, they need to take responsibility and talk to someone about it. By keeping this information private, we are allowing kids to learn that there aren't always consequences, and parents aren't reliable, so you don't need them on your back all the time.

Even for a Christian who doesn't believe in pre-marital sex, I believe it is important to keep the lines of communication open with your children. They should feel comfortable to talk to you about things like this.

This opinion is allowing children to act like adults when it is only detrimental to them and their future. I say allow the parents to do the parenting.

Gwen

 

[comana]

Well my gut says that a parent should know, but practically, it would backfire.

The reason teens are given this privacy is because they are going to have sex one way or another, and we would prefer that they use protection. Having parents (or worse yet the state) know that they're looking for protection is going to give them reason not to use protection, but still engage in sex. In the end we would rather they use protection than not, right?

They're going to have sex one way or the other, there's little we can do about that. What we need to do is give them every opportunity, and every reason to use protection.

In other words in order to get kids to use this protection it is imperative that they be given privacy about it. Keeping a government record is not privacy, and would undoubtedly result in more teen STDs, more unwanted teen pregnancies, and more abortions. Bad, bad, and bad.

I completely agree.

 

[gweneviere]

I would just like to point out that saying that all teens are going to have sex one way or the other is absolutely untrue, and I believe that it is pretty detrimental to society that people think that way.

I am 21 years old and never even had the desire to have sex in my teen years. Have I had hormones? Absolutely. But I never put myself in the position to be tempted to have sex because I was taught by someone that it is wrong. I am not an isolated case. My fiance is also a virgin.

Of course I'm not delusional, I know that some people will do it anyway, but to put that statement on all teenagers is a little offensive in my opinion.

Gwen

 

[comana]

I would just like to point out that saying that all teens are going to have sex one way or the other is absolutely untrue, and I believe that it is pretty detrimental to society that people think that way.

I am 21 years old and never even had the desire to have sex in my teen years. Have I had hormones? Absolutely. But I never put myself in the position to be tempted to have sex because I was taught by someone that it is wrong. I am not an isolated case. My fiance is also a virgin.

Of course I'm not delusional, I know that some people will do it anyway, but to put that statement on all teenagers is a little offensive in my opinion.

Gwen

I didn't see anyone saying that all teens will have sex.

What I read was that teens (in the general sense here) will have sex. Knowing that teens do indeed have sex regardless of what they are told ( and note this is not meant to include all teens), they should have access to medical advice in a private manner.

Setting up a system where anyone in the know must "tell' on them fosters resentment of authority and encourages irresponsible behavior so they won't get caught.

 

[Toboe]

Who I (as a minor) have sex with is none of the governments concern.

 

[JGG]

I would just like to point out that saying that all teens are going to have sex one way or the other is absolutely untrue, and I believe that it is pretty detrimental to society that people think that way.

I am 21 years old and never even had the desire to have sex in my teen years. Have I had hormones? Absolutely. But I never put myself in the position to be tempted to have sex because I was taught by someone that it is wrong. I am not an isolated case. My fiance is also a virgin.

Of course I'm not delusional, I know that some people will do it anyway, but to put that statement on all teenagers is a little offensive in my opinion.

Gwen

Never said all teenagers, but 75-80% (depending on part of the country) will. In fact, even 50% of Christian Fundamentalists will be sexually active before they are 19.

 

[trunks2k]

I can't believe people think it's ok for doctors to keep parents from knowing about their children's medical history. Are we going to make parents stand outside the doctor's office for a rutine physical? Are we going to keep all medical records for teenagers private? Why does sexual activity get special treatment? Parents have every right to know what is going on with their children. This is how children are corrected and taught.

Because it's a serious public health issue. It would be wonderful for teens not to be afraid of their parent's finding out they have sex. But it's not the case. Reporting consentual sexual activity among minors is likely to lead to a lack of use of protection. If Jane is going to have sex, why would she try and obtain protection if that meant the doctor/pharmacy would inform her parents? Frankly, if the decision comes down between letting parents know and a higher percentage of teens using protection when they have sex, I'll choose the protection.

Also, teens having consentual sex with eachother is not illegal (in just about every state). They're not doing anything illegal, so the state shouldn't be forced to report it to the parents.

About them having sex anyway, that's a silly reason. If a parent knows where their child is at sexually, whether they are abstinent or promiscuous, they will better be able to raise their children.

It's missing the point. The point is that the parent's won't find out anyways because instead of trying to obtain protection, which would result in the parents being notified, teens will just not try to obtain protection. So you'll have roughly the same amount of teens having sex, but significantly fewer of them using protection.

 

[gweneviere]

In general applies to most people in the catagory according to the dictionary. I don't think that it is true.

So according to your line of thinking, when kids try to commit suicide their parents shouldn't be notified? What about if they cheat on a test in school? Is that private also? Your line of thinking says that children should learn on their own because they might get mad at their parents if they found out. Why don't we just get rid of parents? They are apparently only good for their money, shelter and food.

To use your term, "tell"-ing on kids(which is what they are as teenagers) makes them take responsibility for their actions, which is something even grownups have a hard time doing. It's easier to learn when you are young, and that's what parents are for.

Gwen

P.S. I do not mean to be obnoxiously rude to any individual. I believe that this kind of debate is good for personal growth and social interaction, so please don't take it too personal, I am simply disagreeing with you.

 

[Stellar Vision]

What if the child couldn't confide in his or her parents for some reason. They have to be able to trust somebody, but if the parents are going to know, then the child is likely to keep it to his or herself.

 

[""]

Do sexually active minors have a right to privacy?

A Federal judge overruled Kansas AG Phil Kline's interpretation of a state law allowing doctors, counselors, school personnel, etc. to report to the state if they had knowledge of minors (under age 16, by Kansas law) were sexually active. The law's purpose was to allow investigation of possible child abuse. AG Kline's opinion was that the law required such reporting in all cases, even if the sex was likely consensual. So if a 15 year old went to a gynecologist requesting birth control, the doctor would be required, under threat of prosecution, to report the teen to the state. The judge ruled that this interpretation was way beyond the intent of the law, and that medical or other health/social service providers had some discretion in what was reportable. It was noted that some cases, i.e., signs of sexual activity in children 12 and under, or signs of abuse should always be reported.

This is a sensible ruling by the court. True conservatives should be troubled by the AG's extreme application of the law. I agree that minors should not be sexually active, and I'd generally agree that a parent, guardian, or some responsible adult should be aware. But, absent any suspicion of abulse or molestation, is this something the state needs to know? If a 14 year old boy asks a pharmacist for a pack of condoms, what business is it of the state of Kansas? I do think minors have some limited right to privacy--but requiring schools or health clinics, or social service agencies to be informants for the government is going way too far.


http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/14371818.htm

Birth control pills, Depo shots, etc., are not something to be taken lightly. They can and have caused blood clots which are sometimes seen, and sometimes not seen. Children are often not responsible enough to have regular check-ups, to report trouble breathing, pain in the extremities, and tell their family doctor that they receive b.c. pills/shots from another clinic. Usually a parent is present during regular check up's with the family physician, so a serious health crisis caused by their birth control might be overlooked, if all of the information hasn't been shared.

I would actually be for the inclusion of a parent where birth control pills or shots are administered.

Condoms are another story. Condom's are the very best option for the prevention of disease and pregnancy. They are readily available at clinics, at grocery stores, at pharmacies, and without parent permission. No court could ever force a person to show i.d. in order to purchase condoms, because they are not hazardous to one's health. It is my opinion that condoms should be the recommendation to all sexually active persons, teens or otherwise. Pregnancy is not the only issue here. We keep forgetting that HIV is not a virus of the past. It is present today, and many of us are walking around with it, and we don't even know it. Some of our children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, etc., are walking around with it and because they weren't educated at home about the importance of protection during sex, they also do not know it.

The argument has always been "Well, guys just don't like to wear them."

The response should always be: If a male doesn't want to wear a condom to protect his partner, then he shouldn't be allowed to have sex with her. Women, and girls, need to develop a backbone, and the self-esteem to say "Protect me & protect us, or don't touch me."

The argument that there are some out there who are doing it without condom's isn't a good enough reason to issue birth control pills behind a parent's back. It's also not a good enough reason for a woman to risk her health. The phrase "My body. My choice." is often used when abortion is the issue. Why isn't it brought up before sex is the issue?

MY BODY.
MY CHOICE.

No condom. No sex. Period.


Now, of course, I am an advocate for celibacy before marriage, because I believe that God had very good reasons to ask us to abide by this. There are emotional, spiritual, and physical reasons to wait for marriage, and love for one's self should be among them. Stand up for who you are and what you want out of life. If you don't believe in waiting for sex, that's between you and God, but at least believe in protecting yourself.

No condom. No sex. Period.

It's not that hard to say and it's not that difficult to stand for.

 

[gweneviere]

Ok, a few people replied while I was posting, so here's another post.

Who is the person making up these choices? Either the kids have sex with condoms and birth control, or they have unprotected sex. This is a narrowminded view.

I'd like to refer you to this article from only 16 months ago. It discusses sex among teenagers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6839072

According to the article, 87% of teens ages 13-16 haven't had sex yet. That basically discredits your "in general" theory.

Why can't we fight for abstainance? I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the information available on how to use a condom, but how can we just give in to the mentality that safe sex is the only way to prevent disease and pregnancy? Abstinence is the only absolute way to prevent it.

Also, who says that notifying parents would lead to unsafe sex? I would like to know where you get this information. I have never seen that idea supported in a study. It is merely an opinion.

The whole point is that as a society we allow people to shrug off responsibility. Teenagers, adults, Christians, non-Christians, black, white, it doesn't make much of a difference. Americans are increasingly allowing irresponsibility to flourish.

If we would instill in teenagers that it is never 100% safe to have sex, and that they will have to pay the consequences, including pregnancy, STDs, AIDs, etc, instead of saying "well, if you want to do it, we'll let it slide but make sure you use this protection that isn't 100% reliable," we might get some results. Teenagers don't need options when it comes to life altering decisions. They need boundaries and morals that will guide them to make the best decisions for the rest of their life.

Gwen

 

[comana]

In general applies to most people in the catagory according to the dictionary. I don't think that it is true.

So according to your line of thinking, when kids try to commit suicide their parents shouldn't be notified? What about if they cheat on a test in school? Is that private also? Your line of thinking says that children should learn on their own because they might get mad at their parents if they found out. Why don't we just get rid of parents? They are apparently only good for their money, shelter and food.

To use your term, "tell"-ing on kids(which is what they are as teenagers) makes them take responsibility for their actions, which is something even grownups have a hard time doing. It's easier to learn when you are young, and that's what parents are for.

Gwen

I didn't think I needed to be specific here, considering the topic of the debate, but to be clear I was referring to a teens reproductive health and privacy. Let's not move goal posts.

Sex is still a taboo subject in this country. Until parents can talk openly with their children about all things sex we can't expect teens to feel comfortable asking mom and dad if they can use birth control. If they have a clinic or doctor they trust, I would rather they seek advice and BC somewhere instead of just crossing their fingers.

Knowing that the doctor would be required to inform their parents would just encourage irresponsibility.

P.S. I do not mean to be obnoxiously rude to any individual. I believe that this kind of debate is good for personal growth and social interaction, so please don't take it too personal, I am simply disagreeing with you.

I always enjoy a good debate

 

[gweneviere]

But where do you draw the line? I've never heard of a teen telling their parents that they are having suicidal thoughts in an open conversation, but that doesn't stop doctors from telling parents about that. That is private information that I would not normally talk to my parents about if it were the case. We shouldn't be treating teenagers as adults. They have parents for a reason, so that they can correct behavior and instill values and morals. Are we really going to let teenagers tell parents what they should and shouldn't know? Where is the line between child and parent?

Gwen