Skip to comments.
Kids Released from School to Get Abortions and "Mental Health" counseling WITHOUT PARENTS' KNOWLEDGE
Sacramento Bee ^
| December 4, 2002
| Laurel Rosen
Posted on 12/4/2002, 7:32:14 PM by Saundra Duffy
Edited on 4/13/2004, 12:46:36 AM by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Citing state law, Roseville's board won't mandate parental notice for students seeking confidential care.
Sex, Christianity and "natural law" were all elements in a discussion Tuesday night at the meeting of the Roseville Joint Union High School District board of trustees. The trustees were debating a controversial policy that requires schools to release students from campus for confidential medical appointments without notifying parents -- a policy mandated by state law.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: California
KEYWORDS: abortion; california; counseling; parents; roseville
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
Poor lost souls in California. Our children are treated so shabbily. It's a crime against humanity. California to parents: GO SCREW YOURSELVES!
To: Notwithstanding; nickcarraway
Isn't this just peachy? (But what else is new in California?)
To: CounterCounterCulture
If you had kids, wouldn't you want to know when they were going for medical treatment? Duh!
To: Saundra Duffy
She said that the Journal of the American Medical Association put out a study this year saying that if parental consent were mandated, a large percentage of minors would delay seeking care for sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy and HIV/AIDS. Anyone can produce a "study" that proves just about anything these days.
California sure has a low opinion of parents. Who believes the government knows more about what is best for children than parents do?
To: Saundra Duffy
Eat, drink and be merry folks cause I personally don't see how this country can go any lower. Something has to give and I have a feeling we are putting a great strain on the rubberband of our Almighty and we will pay the price.
To: Saundra Duffy
BTTT for later...
6
posted on
12/4/2002, 8:37:20 PM
by
EdReform
To: Saundra Duffy
And the Leftists tell us it's our foreign policy that the Muslims hate...
To: RAT Patrol
Depends on which parents you're talking about. Public school systems are dealing with a lot of kids who parents are totally dysfunctional and sometimes can't even be located within a reasonable length of time (by the school or the kids). I sympathize with the school district re the need for such kids to get help without involving their sorry excuses for parents. But that's no reason to subject all parents to this treatment.
Seems to me a simple solution would be to offer parents and "opt out" form at the time of enrollment, so they could put in writing that their child is not permitted to leave school for such services without prior permission from the parent. Parents who can't be bothered to submit the form, or who don't accompany their children to enrollment or contact the school if they really can't be there for enrollment, are the parents whose kids need confidential access to such services, and who don't deserve any further notification.
The only way a student with a parental "opt out" form on file could receive such services without the parents' knowledge would be if police are brought into the case, for example, if the student is saying that s/he can't safely tell the parents because they are the source of the problem (incest, beatings, etc.). That way the parents would eventually be notified, but under circumstances which would (theoretically, at least) protect the child from dangerous parental retaliation.
To: RAT Patrol
California sure has a low opinion of parents. No kidding!
To: cubreporter
. . .I personally don't see how this country can go any lower. This is about as low as you can get. Subjecting children to invasive medical procedures without parental knowledge! Give me a break!! And taking the kids for "mental health" counseling and drug rehab behind parents' backs. This is CRAZY!!!!!
To: GovernmentShrinker
The only way a student with a parental "opt out" form on file could receive such services without the parents' knowledge would be if police are brought into the case, for example, if the student is saying that s/he can't safely tell the parents because they are the source of the problem (incest, beatings, etc.). You're wrong, pal. For example, this "diversity" crap. The homosexuals can take kids on "field trips" without informing parents. Parents almost have to hire a lawyer and take legal action to prevent their kids from being subjected to school tyrrany. It's sad but true. (This is California.)
To: Saundra Duffy
I was proposing how things SHOULD be run, not saying that it currently is that way. An adolescent girl whose lowlife mother is too busy with her boyfriends and drugs to bother filling out a form to prohibit her daughter from getting confidential health services, shouldn't be deprived of those services because the school can't track down the mother to get permission or the mother can't be bothered to respond one way or the other. It's pathetic how many kids in public schools really do come from homes like this, but when parents completely abdicate their responsibilities, they have no business objecting to the school system trying help in whatever way it deems best.
Many years ago, I volunteered as a teacher's aide in an inner-city Washington, D.C. elementary school, in a kindergarten classroom. Many of the kids obviously came from very deficient homes, but one little boy in particular I'll never forget (and I'm sure he's either dead or in jail now). At age 5, he was aggressive and disruptive (on a completely different level from the other 5 year old boys) and not participating at all in most classroom activities. Early in the year, the teacher discovered a big part of the problem -- vision tests were administered to the kids at school, and the boy's vision was so bad that he obviously couldn't see anything on the board or held up in front of the class. The teacher tried over and over again to call the home (no answer ever, and no answering machine), and she tried pinning notes to his shirt before sending him home, explaining that he needed glasses and where to go to get them FREE. By the end of the school year, nothing had been done, the little boy still had no glasses, and was more angry, frustrated, aggressive and disruptive than ever. If the DC laws had permitted the school to take the child out to get glasses, this problem would have been solved (and a visit to a child psychologist probably would have been very helpful too). And nobody should have given a rat's patootie what this kid's parents thought about it.
There a difference between just biological/legal parents and actually functioning parents. The schools that are stuck with kids from both types of homes should have a mechanism for clearly distinguishing the two groups and applying different rules to them.
To: Saundra Duffy
13
posted on
12/5/2002, 12:48:56 AM
by
ladylib
To: GovernmentShrinker
I see your point. You're a caring person, that's obvious. I'm for parental rights but seems to me the parents of the kid who needed glasses were committing the crime of child abuse/neglect. It would make sense to report the parents to the authorities to investigate their fitness. Glasses are an absolute necessity of life. I remember when I got my glasses as a little girl. Wow! I could see things clearly and it made such a difference in school. It's complicated. Thanks for your input.
To: ladylib
Say, thanks for the link. Very interesting!
To: Saundra Duffy
This isn't new in California....I was working with a group in Palm Desert, CA, over 10 years ago, writing to legislature and reps. to get this to be illegal. A teen girl died from an abortion....wisked off from school that day without parental knowledge or consent. The parents didn't know where their daughter was, all night....frantic calls; they found out the next a.m. their daughter was dead from an abortion procedure......I will try to see if I still have the info. ...
To: Saundra Duffy
This is the best info. I have (from a report I prepared in November 1991):
"In 1991, a San Fernando Valley death could have been avoided had parents known their 14-year-old daughter was pregnant. She hemorrhaged to death during a confidential abortion procedure in a school-based clinic. The parents were not informed of her death until 24 hours later."
The code which allowed this, at the time, was Education Code 460101.1. We tried, but were obviously unsucessful, in getting that repealed. I have a contact (if it's still the same (old) number of someone in California who worked on this with me.....if you or someone else is interested in more specific information....).
To: Saundra Duffy
To: EdReform
Glad you posted that....because of the Hatch Amendment (and my crusade with a citizens group), the schools in Palm Desert dropped some programs altogether, and began sending out parental consent/notification forms. They claimed they were "ignorant" to the Hatch Amendment.
To: Saundra Duffy
Why haven't parents whose children have been given unapproved medical attention filed a class action lawsuit? Where is their outrage?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson