Schools as Subversive

The Morning After Pill

The Morning After Pill (Photo credit: VixyView)

The CATCH program in New York City is distributing the morning after pill to teens as young as 14. School nurses do not have to get permission from parents. This is an opt-out program where parents can sign a document so their children cannot get the pills. 1-2% of the those forms have been returned. The stated purpose of the program is to bring down the teen pregnancy rate: currently at around 7,000 per year in NYC schools.

 

I know of a sure-fire method to bring down the teen pregnancy rate: abstain from sex. As a side benefit, this method protects against STDs as well. It sounds like a winner to me. But… somehow this method is not an option for the New York Department of Education.

 

Is this the work in which we in the public schools want to be involved? One spokesperson said that if they needed parental permission to distribute the birth control/abortifacient medications, it would defeat the purpose of program. “You have to step into the real world not kind of what seems right. And the truth is, if parents had to be asked before Plan B was given to a girl In many, many, probably the most of those instances the girl is going to say, ‘Don’t call my parents.'”

 

Translation: government schools are willing to subvert parental rights and support young people in taking part in activities, in this case, sexual activities, that are not acceptable to their parents. Are we as teachers willing to be a part of that? I’m not.

 

You can listen to a news feature including the quote from above, here: The World and Everything In It | WORLD

 

NYC Schools dispensing morning after pill to girls

 

Tax payer funded drugs without a prescription

 

New York Post article

 

 

 

Advertisements

Freedom of Religion

Map of religious freedom and restrictions in t...

Map of religious freedom and restrictions in the world. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What does freedom of religion mean? Is freedom of religion a nebulous concept that must conform to the dictates of the government? Is it squishy? Can it be pushed to whatever size box the government allows for it? Obamacare includes a  mandate to provide abortifacient drugs. Many of us have problems with this from a moral point of view founded on our religion.  But we are private citizens. The HHS exemption only covers churches and some religious institutions. So has the president and his party decided that the freedom of religion of the private citizen is not important? What does our freedom of religion really mean?

 

 

It seems to me that if we can be forced to purchase medicine to initiate the murder of innocent unborn children, we have crossed a line of freedom of religion. If the intention of our founders was to consider sexual freedom on a par with religious freedom, wouldn’t we find it the first amendment? or somewhere in the Constitution? But we don’t find it because it isn’t there. The founders placed freedom of religion in a prominent location. But they didn’t raise the issue of sexual freedom. Do you suppose they didn’t have sex back then? Of course not. First of all, our founders knew that the area of sexual relations is governed by the Bible and trusted this area to the self-government of the people and the common law which is founded on the Bible. Second, sexual freedom leads to social chaos. Many of the social ills that we have in our country today can be directly linked to “sexual freedom”: 50 million Americans dead, epidemic STDs, single-parent families, poverty, crime, prison expansion, the growing welfare state.

 

 

What do you think? What should freedom of religion mean? On what do you base that meaning?