Schools Helping Kids Get Secret Abortions?

[PsychoSerenity]

Actually, yes. The girl, of course, can deny this, but that kind of case is when emancipation of the minor is called for, usually followed at once by booting her out of the parental home.

Seriously, either she's a minor, and she lives with it, or she wants to be a full adult, and then she stops expecting to be provided for.
Being provided for and under the legal protection of a legal guardian, but cherry picking things that you don't want them to have a know, or say in, is what the expression "have your cake and eat it too" was coined for.

That's an absurd idea. The law is written that way because it has to pick an arbitrary age that can apply in general for all cases. But when the law is put into practice, leniency is given to take into account the specific circumstances.

Taking the law literally, that people are minors and the full responsibility of their parents until they are 18, at which point they suddenly become adults and are fully responsible for themselves, - and using that as a guide for raising children, is ridiculous. Real life doesn't work like that, people don't grow up like that, and raising children that way is likely to cause serious problems. Learning to fit into the adult world is a gradual process that takes about a decade - and that's how it should be treated.

[Arse]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Obviously school counsellors have to guarantee confidentiality to any child or teenager who approaches them, otherwise there would be no point in having them, because nobody would approach them.

[Pappa]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Obviously school counsellors have to guarantee confidentiality to any child or teenager who approaches them, otherwise there would be no point in having them, because nobody would approach them.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you had a daughter and she got pregnant, and the school personnel saw fit to disregard your parental rights (and responsibilities) you might be livid as well.

Father of two 16-year-old women checking in. (well, one turned 16 last week, one turns 16 tomorrow)

I would be disappointed that they couldn't approach me about it. I would be concerned for their after-care. I would be proud of them for making what is still a difficult decision.

Do you have daughters, Coito? How would you feel? (if you did, I mean)

If that occurred, I would be quite concerned about a system that allowed strangers to direct and/or influence my family in that manner. I would be upset that they saw fit to deprive my daughter of my comfort and guidance in that situation. I would be outraged they they saw fit to impose their guidance in place of mine. I would likely consider it the equivalent of me surreptitiously meeting with their children, and advising them on sexual matters without their knowledge.

------------

This would make sense if parental permission were also needed in order to get pregnant in the first place.

I'm not certain how that relates. Up to a certain age, the sex involved might be statutory rape. The article discusses how school officials hushed it up out of fear the parents might want statutory rape prosecuted. I raised an eyebrow at that, because it sounds like being an accessory after the fact.

Is a victim an accessory after the fact when they decline to pursue prosecution in a sexual assault case?

The counselor is.

------------

Why would parents have input into medical procedures that are unimportant, but not the important ones?

At 16, they don't. It is between the 16-year-old, their doctor, and whoever else they decide to include.

I haven't suggested the parents should be permitted to force anyone to have a baby. I'm talking about the conduct of some idiot school counselor to affirmatively cover up the action from the parents.

No, you are talking about the counselor keeping his or her mouth shut (as required) and a doctor making the decision not to include the parents.
The doctor decided to support the young lady - I think it's relevant.

Where there is no emergency, I strongly oppose third parties making medical decisions in place of the legal guardian of the minor child.

No 16 year old wants their parents to know they got knocked up. That doesn't mean the parents don't have a right to know. And, a school counselor is generally an incompetent moron. They just ask the kid if she feels comfortable talking to mom and dad, and if she says not, then poof - go ahead and let's keep it on the down-low.

Yup. Especially if the doc agrees.

That, in my opinion, is outrageous.

------------

A few years ago I helped a friend get a secret abortion - no questions asked. It's what she said she wanted and I gave her lodgings and support as she did not want anyone to know.

WOO HOO!!! Congrats to you and that other nice lady who did it. I did it, too. The young lady did not want to include her parents, and I presume the doctor agreed with her assessment.

------------

Any decision which might lead to forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term should be avoided. Abortion is one of the most important human rights advances in a very long time. I would protect it as vigorously as I would protect freedom of speech. If the host doesn't want to carry the parasite, get it out. It really is simple. As to telling the parents, how could it possibly improve anything?

Informing the parents is not "forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term."

Would 'twer Freedom of Speech was nearly as protected....

I'm in favor of the freedom of women to have abortions. I'm not talking about the teen being deprived of that. What I'm talking about is the interference with parents being parents. How could telling the parents improve anything? Really? Parents are the primary physical and mental caregivers to their children, and they have been the ones providing care, advice, assistance, support, maintenance, and all the rest of what it is required to raise a child. The parents are the ones who took the child to the hospital when she broke her arm, or cared for a psychologically upset child on many occasions through life. The parents are generally the ones who provide the solace, comfort and support. Such things could be provided by the parents in the situation of a pregnancy.

[Arse]

It doesn't make any difference to this issue, CES. If you undermine the right to confidentiality between a school counsellor and a minor who approaches them, no minor will ever approach them. Is that not common sense? If it was an issue they wanted their parents to hear about, they would go to their parents, not to a school counsellor.

Of course, the counsellor should in most cases, try their best to persuade the child to tell their parents, but if the child says no, that's that.

[Geoff]

What I'm talking about is the interference with parents being parents. How could telling the parents improve anything? Really? Parents are the primary physical and mental caregivers to their children, and they have been the ones providing care, advice, assistance, support, maintenance, and all the rest of what it is required to raise a child. The parents are the ones who took the child to the hospital when she broke her arm, or cared for a psychologically upset child on many occasions through life. The parents are generally the ones who provide the solace, comfort and support. Such things could be provided by the parents in the situation of a pregnancy.

And in an ideal world, everyone who made a baby would instantly become the perfect, fully qualified parent that you picture above.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Obviously school counsellors have to guarantee confidentiality to any child or teenager who approaches them, otherwise there would be no point in having them, because nobody would approach them.

Since when did school counselor become some sort of "attorney client privilege" where parents were not to be given access to serious medical and psychological conditions of their children? Although minor clients have an ethical right to privacy and confidentiality in the counseling relationship…[the] privacy rights of minors (traditionally) legally belong to their parents or guardians. The US Supreme Court has consistently maintained that parents possess a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit. In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. The Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better' decision could be made.Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

Even the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice of the American Counseling Association acknowledges that parents are the guardians of their minor children.

[Arse]

Then scrap school counsellors, CES, because there's no point in having them if the people who use them aren't guaranteed confidentiality.

[Coito ergo sum]

What I'm talking about is the interference with parents being parents. How could telling the parents improve anything? Really? Parents are the primary physical and mental caregivers to their children, and they have been the ones providing care, advice, assistance, support, maintenance, and all the rest of what it is required to raise a child. The parents are the ones who took the child to the hospital when she broke her arm, or cared for a psychologically upset child on many occasions through life. The parents are generally the ones who provide the solace, comfort and support. Such things could be provided by the parents in the situation of a pregnancy.

And in an ideal world, everyone who made a baby would instantly become the perfect, fully qualified parent that you picture above.

That's missing my point. My point is that the girl who became pregnant was raised by her parents. They provided her and were both legally obligated to provide and had a legal right to provide care, advice, assistance, maintenance, support, education, etc. Certainly, if there is a question of neglect or abuse by the parents, then the analysis has to change - but, just the mere fact that a kid doesn't want to "get in trouble" by having her parents find out? When did this become remotely reasonable? I'm shocked so many people think that's the way it should be. Have we simply abdicated parenting and education to the State?

[Coito ergo sum]

Then scrap school counsellors, CES, because there's no point in having them if the people who use them aren't guaranteed confidentiality.

They've been around for long before there was any thought that parents wouldn't be able to find out important information about their children's health and welfare.

And, by your logic, we need to scrap child psychiatrists too, because the parents have a right to know their children's medical conditions, including psychiatric conditions.

[Arse]

They've been around for long before there was any thought that parents wouldn't be able to find out important information about their children's health and welfare.

I'd say there was plenty of back street abortion going on back then too.

And, by your logic, we need to scrap child psychiatrists too, because the parents have a right to know their children's medical conditions, including psychiatric conditions.

That's not quite the same thing. If a child is being sent to a child psychiatrist, in most cases it would be the parents who sent them there. A school counsellor is someone the child approaches of their own volition. And if they know that the school counsellor is legally bound to tell their parents that they're pregnant, in most cases they won't approach them in the first place - they will either tell their parents themselves or opt for the coat hanger or some other horrible option.

[Coito ergo sum]

They've been around for long before there was any thought that parents wouldn't be able to find out important information about their children's health and welfare.

I'd say there was plenty of back street abortion going on back then too.

That's because abortion was illegal, not because parents got to participate in the education and care for their children.

[Santa_Claus]

CES, have you been talking to Jesus again?

I've you about that before.............

[Cunt]

Coito, why does a 16-year old, with a licensed doctor attending, need to disclose anything to anyone? (I mean what is to be gained?)

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, why does a 16-year old, with a licensed doctor attending, need to disclose anything to anyone? (I mean what is to be gained?)

The article was mainly about 16 year olds, but also discussed 13 and 14 year olds. The issue is not exclusively about one particular 16 year old girl.

What is to be gained is that the legal guardians of the 16 year old minor are informed of a serious issue concerning their ward, and said legal guardians' legal rights would be honored. In addition, the minor would have the benefit of the parents/legal guardians' care, guidance, advice, support, etc.

In addition, for the same reason we don't allow 16 year olds to get surgeries and buy cigarettes, it would be for their own protection.