Calif. Teen Privacy Law Raises Questions

Fox News ^ | Jan 3, 2005 | Fox News

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

SAN FRANCISCO — Does a teenager’s right to privacy trump a parent’s right to know when it comes to abortion? In California, the answer is “yes.”

California schools are forbidden from telling parents when their kids leave class to seek confidential medical treatment including drug counseling and even abortion, according to the state attorney general's office.

While schools must notify parents of the "Student Confidentiality Policy" (search) at the start of each academic year, the reality is that eighth-graders could end a pregnancy, get an AIDS test or seek treatment for addiction during the school day without their knowledge or consent.

- snip -

The article goes on...

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

California schools are forbidden from telling parents when their kids leave class to seek “confidential medical treatment” — including drug counseling and even abortion, according to the state attorney general’s office.

In CA your children are property of the state 8, or more, hours each weekday. Your input is unwanted. Good luck if your values run contrary to the state's values...

[L98Fiero]

And they say Mississippi is backwards...

[Sam Cree]

That's about the size of it...I think things were similar in Nazi Germany.

[patriot_wes]

"California schools are forbidden from telling parents when their kids leave class to seek confidential medical treatment including drug counseling and even abortion"

"Come out of her my people"...home-school bump!

[tfecw]

wooo.....i would classify drug therapy as a "confidential medical treatment" I'm not sure I'd classify an abortion as a medical treatment...I'd say its closer to plastic surgery actually. If the abortion is happening for life threatening issues or maybe because of a rape...then I'd classify it as a medical treatment.

It's policies like this that make me want to punch every liberal in the face who says "Where were the parents" Whoops...liberals don't say that ;) they blame emmenim and M.Manson and Grand Theft Auto. I wonder when they start blaming the school districts....

[odoso]

Teenagers should have no rights until their at least 16. Has California gone completely F'ing mad!!!

[ddantas]

Good luck if your values run contrary to the state's values...

Then you have the choice to move to another state that is more compatible with your values. Hooray for federalism!

[animoveritas]

But let your child try and buy pellets for an air gun. The state won't allow the sale of a 0.177" piece of lead without parental permission, yet killing a baby is none of a parent's business.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

I'd say that kids are the parents responsibility until they are 18.

From: http://www.illinoislawyerfinder.com/publicinfo/adult.asp

BECOMING AN ADULT:

Your Legal Rights and Responsibilities at Age 18

INTRODUCTION

This booklet highlights some of the many ways your legal rights and responsibilities change when you reach 18 and become an "adult" in many ways.

[jb6]

We truly are two different nations.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Can teachers in California perform weddings in the classroom like the Captain on a ship?

I think only if it's a boy-boy, or girl-girl wedding...

Maybe teacher-child/student wedding.

[GeekDejure]

And they say Mississippi is backwards...

======

...sdrawkcab si ippississiM yas yeht dnA

Yup... so it seems... but at least it ends with dnA !!! ;-))

[Mark was here]

bump

[elbucko]

Teenagers should have no rights until their at least 16.

Exactly. However, the minute I post that concept, the knee's jerk and parents think that I am against their kids rights permanently. It's not complex, but it is hard for people to think in terms of those who have rights under the Constitution and those who are a class of person that are protected. Children, by their very nature of being immature do not have rights, but protections. A child's rights are vested with the parents until the child becomes a legal adult at 18 years old. The minute children are assumed to posses rights, the state now has the child's "rights" vested with the state and the parents are no longer in the social/legal equation, as this case demonstrates.

The movement since the Sixties for children to have "rights" is nothing more than a front for the state to assume power beyond the parents over their children. Teenagers "Rights" sound good to the kids and politicians, but all it does is make ones kid a ward of the state while they live under your roof.

[EQAndyBuzz]

The Governator signed this into law?

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

I'm pretty sure that this was signed into law while Greyout Davis was spreading CA's citizen's money to his buddies/future employers in his last days.

[elbucko]

The Governator signed this into law?

Not sure, offhand. In this article the issue is being pursued by the CA State AG (who is going to run for governor). As for Arnold, I voted for Tom McClintock. Arnold is better than Gray Davis, but just.

[reaganaut]

Of course, in CA teenages cannot go to tanning salons without parental permission (no, I am not kidding it is a law here).

[odoso]

PING!

One other minor thing it does... It gets the state in our homes where it has NO business being. None, zilch, zero.