“This isn’t encouraging kids to have sex. This is about the kids who are engaging in sexual activity.” Richard Veilleux, executive director of the Maine Assembly on School-Based Health Care
Birth Control for Children?
For years those on the left have been preaching the need to make condoms available in schools. They have used the argument that teens are going to engage in sex and the need to protect them from HIV/AIDS was and is important. For the purpose of this conversation, I will concede as fact that in today’s age with many sexually transmitted diseases back on the rise — we need to teach our children the importance of utilizing a latex barrier to help prevent those diseases.
Considering that many of these infections, most notably HPV, demonstrate a link with cervical cancer, the argument that condoms can potentially save lives, from a health care stand point, is valid. So why is an educational institution willing to discount past thought and encourage the practice of unprotected, potentially lethal sex? Why are we willing to send the message to a child that, yes, you are sexually active and the most important thing is to avoid getting pregnant, take this pill or wear this patch and all will be okay?
So if the child opts for the birth control pill or patch over a condom; who will be responsible if a child contracts HIV? Will it be the school district, the doctor or the child who wrongfully thought they were “protected?” One of the benefits to the safe sex message is that properly used condoms can possibly prevent pregnancy as well as disease. Abstinence actually does prevent both but liberal thinking does not allow, into the conversation, that fact.
Another question to pose; is the child of legal age to make a medical decision for herself? The child is not of age to enter into a legal contract, so is the young girl now able to sign a medical informed consent form? Will an eleven year old be able to understand the plausible side effects? Even if they do comprehend and experience an adverse reaction; will they tell their parents? Considering the medication was given without parental knowledge it would not be a stretch to think that the child would not tell the parent.
What about possible drug interactions? If the parent takes the child to the family doctor for another condition and the family doctor is unaware the child is on the birth control pill and prescribes another drug, if there is a negative reaction — who is responsible?
We are now seeing, in post menopausal women, a possible link between breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy. What can of worms are we going to open when we introduce adult level hormones into an immature reproductive system and body? Does being on the pill make one more susceptible to breast cancer?
From drgreen.org, “According to Dr. Leslie Bernstein, et al., looked at many studies, some showing a risk from birth control pills, others showing no risk at all. They did a careful meta-analysis of all the data and concluded that the risk of breast cancer does increase with prolonged use of the pill. (Relationship of hormone use to cancer risk. Monograph of the National Cancer Institute 12:137 1992). At 120 months or ten years of use the relative risk was 1.38. These women were 1.38 times as likely to get breast cancer as those who had not used the pill.”
If these children, start on the pill prior to the age of eighteen, stay on it until they are twenty eight, they will be past the ten year mark. If they develop breast cancer who is liable? Did the child, at eleven years old, understand the potential risk of developing breast cancer into their thirties, forties, or fifties and beyond. Again, can the child make an educated, responsible, informed, consenting decision? I say no! And I say shame on the doctor who irresponsibly, without parental knowledge and consent, prescribes a controlled, hormone based, medication to a child.
This decision negatively impacts true safe sex efforts, parental responsibility, parental rights and puts children at greater potential risk. One must question the motivation behind this decision. Is it about the children? Are the proponents well meaning, but short sighted? Or is there another agenda?
When you examine the facts — this zeal to prevent pregnancy, via prescription drugs, could potentially prove fatal.