Listened to NPR, for the first time over 10 seconds today.  The subject was "Should we make it policy that a teenager that gets PRESCRIPTION birth control have to notify the parents".  The guest was a liberal OB/GYN and Democratic representative for Milwaukee.  He made me want to puke.  

This guy was obviously against notifying the parents.  The thrust (I made a funny, ha!) of his logic was that kids are going to do it anyway, and many kids aren't educated by the parents and/or parents will not talk with them about it, so by providing PRESCRIPTION birth control without notifying the parents, the kids are getting the "help" that they need to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STD's.

This makes me sick.  According to the study they cited, 90% of kids who would quit taking birth control if the parents would be told, would continue to have sex, and therefore become "victims" of STD's and unwanted pregnancy.

Here is where they are oh so wrong.

1.  The obvious issue of parental control and responsibility, and .gov intereference with that.  One caller did bring this up, the response is "it's right because otherwise you will have STD's and unwanted pregnancy".

My issues with it:  
1. Parents are responsible for and should have full control and authority over the teen.  If you want to help the root cause, set up some way to educate the parents and encourage them to educate the teen, but do not usurp the parent's authority.

2.  By usurping the parents authority in such a fashion, by default you teach the child that it is not important to be accountable to the parents.  The system allows the teen to bypass accountability to the parents, and teaches them to not be accountable for thier behavior and to society in general.  This has much larger implications for society.

3.  The argument they used was flawed.  90% said they would quit using birth control but not sex if they had to tell the parents.

  A.  Only two types of birth control need a   prescription, the injected type and the pill.  It seems to me, this would encourage unprotected sex (without a condom).  Thus ENCOURAGING the spread of STD's.  The study did not ask how many would switch to using a condom, and that info would really be needed to complete the picture.  Eliminating the prescription and switching to condoms would seem to me to be the way to address the issue while ACTUALLY addressing the issue of STD's, but what do I know?

My solution:

1.  For the bleeding heart that just has to DO something "for the children":  Educate parents on the importance of discussion sexual issues with teens, adopt a realistic attitude toward the issue, and insist that your kids talk to you when issues come up.

2.  Insist that if they are going to do it, use a frigging condom...the best option for preventing pregnancy AND STD's!  

3.  Stay the hell out of the teen/parent relationship when it comes to accountability, the parent/child relationship MUST be the defining factor in establishing accountability and morality.  

4.  Do not prescribe any drug or substance to my kid that I will not be notified about!

It seems to me this strikes the right balance between addressing the issue, while maintaining respect for privacy and parental rights.
How about it people?  TheKill for President?

/rant

 

I love the idiots that continue to speak out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

They want me to not be advised when my kids are getting birth control and abortions, but want me to be legally and financially responsible for their actions!

Nothing new here.

ps. The NPR idiot should be beaten for claiming that prescription contraceptives control STDs.  Can anyone point me to where I can get a copy of the transcript and this bonehead's name and address?

Enjoy your tax dollars at work.

Well now, they didn't actually make the claim that prescription contraceptives control STD's, just gave prevention of STD's as a reason why we shouldn't notify the parents about them.  I know, I know.  Talk about sneaky, not logical, circular minded morons.  But mutherf***er, they guest was an OB/GYN for pete's sake!  You would think that would have caught his attention.  

It was the Milwaukee/Delavan NPR station, the name of the show was "Ideas" or some such shit, and it was on at 0730 Central.

NPR?  I call it National Communist Radio, but listen fairly regularly.

1st I paid for it and second, it pays to know what your enemys are saying about you.

Market place and some other NPR shows are not all that bad.

The program "All things Consided" is where you get most of the socialist tripe.  The subtitle might as well be "No Matter how F'n stupid"

Sorry, TheKill, not trying to flame you, but getting mad about liberal drivel on NPR is kind of like getting mad about teenagers not giving you good service at Burger King.  
[:D]
I stopped listening to it long ago and my blood pressure is way down.  (Or is it because I also stopped going to Burger King?)
[puke]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now THAT'S f'n funny!

NPR has no moral right to exist.

It never has.



“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”

— Thomas Jefferson

HMMM?

i like "car talk", "mountain stage", "this american life", michael feldman's "whaddya know", "a prairie home companion", "all things considered" and most of the classical music on my local npr stations. even that lesbian that hosts "fresh air" has some interesting guests every so often.

i just laugh at the socialist editorial/reporting bias that i hear.

the liberal morons that phone in during the pledge drives are hysterical!

"All Things Considered" does not seem to consider everything.  NPR is always asking for donations even though I am taxed to pay for these half-truths(modified for legal purposes).

What is this?  Our tax dollars pay for NPR?!?  Why and how did they get tax money?

According to NPR's website:

[i]The only direct government funding NPR receives is through competitive grants from government agencies for specific projects. Such grants are awarded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, and typically represent only 2% of total revenues. [/i]

2%? I call B.S.