In discussion with GeneralDisarray about Applebaum's assertion that she doesn't want to consider this forum "feminist," I wrote more broadly about XX Factor posts. Here's what I said:

What is frustrating is how blase [Applebaum] was about writing of her discomfort about being called 'feminist.' It's as though she didn't stop to think about what she was saying. It's also frustrating to think that XX Factor writers don't consider themselves feminists. I'm not saying they all have to be the same kind of feminists, but come ON - you're writing about women's issues and women's rights and you don't consider yourself a feminist? GROSS.

It honestly makes me not want to read XX Factor to see that statement.

Additionally - who was it that got to post that ridiculous blog about birth control in schools for 10-12 year olds? Larimore. Her 'opinion' was so clearly uninformed - if she wanted answers to her legal questions about the role of a school in the sexual intercourse between its students, she could have looked it up somewhere, called a public school, asked someone more informed than she - any number of things. Also, for me to see really prototypical abstinence-pushing motivations behind an argument AGAINST free contraception in schools on a blog called XX Factor? Incredibly disheartening.

I wonder if the writers for XX Factor aren't yet taking this idea seriously enough. Some of the blogs I've read here have seemed so flippant, so clearly without deeper thinking (Dahlia's comments about how dads don't multi-task and her soggy assertion that no wonder kids won't vote for women; Anne Applebaum's off-handed antifeminist remark; Larimore; etc) - I wonder if so far the writers for XX Factor just think it's a place to jot down some thoughts before heading back over to the 'real news' that has nothing to do with women's issues.

I'll continue to read and post, because I think these are important issues. But I do seriously question how on earth writers for this blog are chosen. Is it just because they're women? Can we get some actual educated feminists over here please? Men and women feminists alike is fine with me. Just PLEASE, some deeper thinking, some educated opinions, some people who are already familiar with feminist theory, some actual insightful, keen allies to the women's movement.

Heard at FrayWay Park recently:

GRANOLA!!!

GET YOUR GRANOLA HERE!!!

GRANOLA!!!

I think women who don't want to call themselves feminists are afraid to be thought of as not pretty. Oh well, you either are or you aren't.

This has been a fine start and likely to get better with time. Women's Issues and Feminism in one blog is okay.

The tepid approach by Larimore in expressing her opinion on the contraception issue bothered me too. If you are against it of for it you should be able to shout it out. Especially in a venue ostensibly set up to let women sow their intellectual oats.

Otherwise schools giving 10-12 year old girls the pill is plainly simply tragic. Not notifying the parents is a travesty. Anybody who can't see that has the basest view of the human condition.

Well, it's tricky. On the one hand, parents should be educating their children enough to hopefully encourage that children that age do not engage in sex. On the other hand, if children that age ARE having sex, I want to make sure it's healthy and that unwanted pregnancies or diseases do not start abounding in middle schools. The problem with schools notifying parents about the consensual sexual activity of their children, when the children seek out birth control, is that it amounts to - in my opinion - breaking medical confidentiality. I am also someone who firmly believes minors shouldn't be required to tell their parents they have chosen to get an abortion. Additionally, here's the thing -- if a middle schooler has the wherewithall to seek out birth control, I want to encourage the child does that. The requirement to tell parents about that seeking out is likely to discourage children from seeking out birth control in the first place. But it may not prevent them from having sex. As with most behaviors that cannot simply be prevented -- it seems better to me to offer safety measurements to children who do what they please anyway rather than promoting abstinence WITHOUT offering safety measurements. And I don't promote breaking medical confidentiality in any setting, unless a child is being assaulted or abused (it is required by law to report that).

After all that I'm of the belief that you are not aware of all the rights and obligations of a parent.

Asserting medical confidentiality is absurd. It would be the equivalent of thinking police should be able to interrogate children without their parent being present or consenting. The parents are meant to be present in order to call for a lawyer for a reason.

Why do tattoo artists have to clear it with the parents of minors in order to draw on them, simply because it isn't a lie that can be as well hidden as an abortion? Why are you legally responsible for the actions of your under age child? Well, because you have the right and obligation to try and modify their behavior.

What you are advocating is like buying a handgun for your kid and giving it to him because in some communities it's,

"Hey, he's going to get one anyways. It ain't like he's criminal, I just want him to be safe in case he decides to go out in our neighborhood after midnight."

Then he shoots his face off playing cowboy, quick draw, McGraw.

What happens when parents abrogate that right and obligation, nothing good. You have got to come to the realization that minors are classified as minors for a reason.

If you want to educate people you shouldn't be educating children to be adults before their time, rather you should be educating adults how to best be parents of their 10-12 year old daughters if they need it. I restate the age range that you avoided in your post to try and shock you into accepting what you are a proponent of.

K,

I'd also say I understand what you propose as being more appropriate for an older child. I'd concede that but also if you are going to take a parent out of the loop because of some likely parental shortcomings, then society should include a judge to somehow to decide if the parent(s) should be advised or not. I do not think school system personnel alone are sufficiently qualified to make these kind of decisions but if needed there roles should be as facilitators to a legal process. Again though only for older girls.

I think your concern for the well being of children is evident. If and when you have kids, or with the ones you have now, I hope that your views go well with their personalities and you have a painless as possible, successful outcome. :-)

Please do a little research on consent and confidentiality for minors before attacking me for referncing the law.

Look at this

Specifically:

Who is authorized to give consent for health care and whose consent is required?

In general, U.S. law requires the consent of a parent before medical care can be provided to a minor. However, there are numerous exceptions to this requirement. These may include:

Consent by someone other than a biologic parent - such as a foster parent, a juvenile court, a social worker, or probation officer;
Emergency situations where care may be provided without prior consent to safeguard the life and health of the minor;
Specific legal provisions in particular states that allow minors to consent for specific areas of care. Some of these include;
Contraceptive care;
Pregnancy related care;
Diagnosis and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs);
Diagnosis and treatment of either human immunodeficiency virus; (HIV), or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS);
Diagnosis and treatment of reportable or contagious diseases;
Examination and treatment related to sexual assault;
Counseling and treatment for drug or alcohol problems;
Counseling and treatment for mental health issues;

And

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

Aside from consent, there is also the issue of confidentiality of services. This includes who has the right to control the release of confidential information about the health care, including medical records, and who has the right to receive such information?

There are numerous reasons why it is important to maintain confidentiality in the delivery of health-care services to adolescents. These include:

The needs of clinical practice: Confidentiality is often needed to facilitate adolescents seeking necessary care and also in providing accurate, candid and complete health information;
Developmental Needs: Confidential discussions and disclosure help support the adolescents' growing sense of privacy and autonomy;
Safety Issues : There are also times that confidentiality/consent is important to protect teen from humiliation and discrimination that could result from disclosure of confidential information.

K. I think you stopped short on your quote. Below I found some more from your source in which I bolded and italicized the parts I feel are also very appropriate to the discussion:

Legal Limits of Confidentiality
It is important to balance the moral needs of protecting the rights of the adolescent with the legal and ethical obligations to breach this confidentiality in selected instances. There are circumstances in which it is neither possible nor appropriate to maintain the confidentiality of information for legal and other reasons. These include situations in which the adolescent poses a severe risk of harm to himself or herself or to others, and cases of suspected physical or sexual abuse for which there is a legal reporting requirement. There are also specific laws in some geographic areas that require parental notification in certain circumstances, even if the care is based on a teen's own consent. Finally, when confidentiality must be breached for ethical or legal reasons, the adolescent should be informed.

Medical Records
Confidentiality protections apply not only to verbal communications but also to written information contained in medical records. Patients, who are permitted to consent to their own health care, should be allowed to review their own medical records and to protect their medical records from review by others. It is far more difficult to protect the confidentiality of written medical records.

It is important to understand local regulations regarding the release of medical records of adolescents. One should understand that many or most hospitals and clinics will release minors medical written chart information to parents with parental consent without requiring the permission of the minor adolescent. This may break the confidentiality of information with an adolescent.

Although usually bound together in clinical encounters, confidentiality and consent are different. Confidentiality can occur during an encounter whether or not specific informed consent for a treatment or intervention is given. For example, pregnancy options may be confidentially discussed before informed consent is given for a pregnancy intervention.

Yes, I read and am fully familiar with the article, which is why I linked it to my post. Please notice what you yourself quoted: "There are circumstances in which it is neither possible nor appropriate to maintain the confidentiality of information for legal and other reasons. These include situations in which the adolescent poses a severe risk of harm to himself or herself or to others, and cases of suspected physical or sexual abuse for which there is a legal reporting requirement." Additionally, beyond highlighting what I already know to be true of the law, I'm not sure how your post in any way refutes my point about consent and confidentiality in this regard. This is the last I will say in this matter with you; thank you for your replies.

The tone of the post I took greater issue was the one in which you asserted/insinuated far less parental rights. It almost verged on conspiratorial.

You will note that there is a level of equanimity in the entire document and that the document does state that in differing jurisdiction there are requirements to retain appropriate consent whereas confidentiality was reserved a more adult status; unless or until the child sought medical attention that required parental consent.

This is a hospital document I believe that accurately represents the needs of jurisdictions it was written for. As such I hope our conversation has helped us better understand the issue and hopefully vote correctly (when legislation is proposed to the voter) as to what represents a better community standard. Needless to say I'd prefer to be right in that venue. I would really hope that you would consider that the lower age ranges in these types of discussions should be far greater than 10-12 years of age.

Thanks for talking the time and for the link, very informative.

Hello again - I don't believe parents shouldn't have any rights, and I certainly didn't intend to convey that I think there should be some system-wide conspiracy against parents' rights. In most areas of a child's life, parents have many rights indeed. I was arguing against what I read to be your moralistic posturing about the actions of young people and the assertion that parents' involvement after-the-fact (when a child has already begun to be sexually active and/or suffers from emotional/psychological problems, and/or etc) would unequivocally benefit children. I disagree with you about that, and so does the law in most states.

In regards to your comments about the 'ages' of girls, I want to remind you about girls and puberty:

Puberty, usually occurring during adolescence, is when kids develop physically and emotionally into young men and women. Usually, this starts to happen no earlier than about 7 to 8 years of age for girls and 9 years of age for boys (the average age is about 10 for girls and 12 for boys). (from here)

This onset of puberty occurs - as a trend - at a younger age than when I was growing up (I grew up in the 80s and 90s). While it may be upsetting to think of such young girls becoming sexually aware and active, unfortunately, there's no denying that some aspects of their biological composition are urging them in that direction -- just as, when I was growing up, my hormones and the hormones of all my girlfriends started really raging around the age of 12. By the age of 14, sex and boys was all we thought about, even if none of us were sexually active. Sex is a reality - whether we like it or not. Rather than getting up in arms about the "age" of minors interested in and engaging in consenual sexual activity with peers, I instead say to myself, "Perhaps we as a legislative society need to protect children at younger ages to afford them consent and confidentiality in the health care industry so as to assist them in making safe choices as they grapple with the urges to explore their sexuality - both biologically and societally influenced."

I do fall on the side of the law that more broadly provides rights for individuals, especially in the area of health care. I have wonderful parents, personally, who were informative, kind, supportive, and involved in my health care needs as a minor. However, I cannot assume that good parenting is a nationwide trend. In fact, I'd argue that it isn't. And that's not even because I think the broader population is comprised of bad people -- it's comprised of flawed people (that is a main characteristic of being human). Additionally, I cannot deny rights to others simply because I believe parents SHOULD be informative, supportive, kind and involved in the health care of minors. History shows us that on many occasions adults take advantage of their 'rights' over minors, across the world. No, not all parents, and sometimes not parents at all, but enough adults have done so (and continue to do so) that certain individual rights for minors has become a mainstay of our legislative social contract. It is worth noting, by the way, that the U.S. is LESS protective, in law, of the rights of minors than many other countries in the world. See below for more details.

Without blaming parents for mistakes they may have made in the rearing of their children, I state that protections should be in place for all minors (at this point, before researching further, I'm not going to put an age cap on it) who are seeking health care consent and confidentiality - except in the cases already mentioned, i.e. a self-report of child abuse, statutory rape and the admission of wanting to harm oneself or others. At the moment, a minor's decision to get an abortion is a nearly nationwide exception to that general rule protecting minors' rights to seek health care consent and confidentiality. Without doing more research on the abortion restrictions for minors, I'll at the moment abstain from commenting on that aspect of the law.

From "Child Rights Information Network" - From "United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child" - The articles produced from the Convention have been ratified by more governments (ALL EXCEPT SOMALIA AND THE U.S.) than any other human rights instrument.

In article 1, the CRC defines children as iall human beings below the age of 18.' As stated in article 3 and repeated throughout the text, the CRC is geared towards ensuring that the "best interest of the child" is safeguarded. Under article 4, States are obliged to do all it can to ensure the rights set out in the CRC.

In November 2002, the Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted General Comment No. 2 on "The Role of Independent National Human Rights Institutions in the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of the Child," which was an elaboration on article 4. Additionally, the Committee adopted General Comment No. 5 one year later on "The General Measures of Implementation of the Convention on the Right of the Child," which outlined more generally what States should do to implement the CRC.

Article 24

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.

2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: (a) To diminish infant and child mortality;

(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;

(c) To combat disease and malnutrition including within the framework of primary health care, through inter alia the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution;

(d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers;

(e) To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breast-feeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents;

(f) To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services.

3. States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practises prejudicial to the health of children.

4. States Parties undertake to promote and encourage international cooperation with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right recognized in the present article. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.

In reaction to finding out that the U.S. hasn't ratified the articles, I found this: The United States and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) The position of the United States towards the convention The United States and Somalia are the only countries in the world that have failed to ratify the Convention. Although the United States signed the Convention on February 16, 1995, the treaty has never been submitted to the U.S. Senate and the United States has stated that it has no plans to ratify the convention. During negotiations for the Special Session in February 2001, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Southwick stated that "it is misleading and inappropriate to use the Convention as a litmus test to measure a nation's commitment to children. As a non-party to the Convention, the United States does not accept obligations based on it, nor do we accept that it is the best or only framework for developing programs and policies to benefit children." The United States hasn't ratified the Convention Some critics in the United States have lobbied heavily against ratification of the convention, claiming that the convention will undermine parental authority, interfere with parents' ability to raise and discipline their children, and will elevate the rights of children above the rights of parents. In reality, the convention repeatedly refers to the importance of the parent-child relationship, and requires governments to respect the rights and duties of parents. The most significant contradiction between the convention and U.S. law and practice is in relation to the death penalty. The Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits the use of the death penalty for offences committed before the age of eighteen. However, twenty-two U.S. states allow executions of juvenile offenders, and currently there are eighty-two juvenile offenders on death row in the United States. In the last five years, nine executions of juvenile offenders were carried out in the United States, and two more are scheduled in the next month. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Iran are the only other states to have carried out such executions in the last three years. During the negotiations for the Special Session, the European Union, supported by numerous other governments, sought the inclusion of language prohibiting the use of the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole for crimes committed by children. The United States, joined only by Iran, rejected the proposal. The United States has other problems with the Convention Traditionally, the United States has recognized civil and political rights (such as the rights to expression, assembly and due process), but not economic, social and cultural rights (such as the right to education, health care and an adequate standard of living). The convention includes both. Also, the United States also argues that many of the issues addressed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child lie primarily within the jurisdiction of the states, rather than the federal government. For example, in the United States, individual states are responsible for education, and for setting laws related to the administration of juvenile justice. Federalism in the U.S. should not be a bar to ratifying the Convention. Other countries with federal systems have ratified the Convention, including Brazil, Germany and Mexico. The U.S. may also adopt a reservation or understanding to address this issue, and in fact, has done so in the past in relation to other international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Of note - the Convention does not explicitly involve itself with family planning and/or abortion - rather, the Convention allows room for each country to produce legislature that is in keeping with the culture of the country (in Ireland, for example - a country that ratified the Convention - abortions are illegal). However, I still maintain that 'health care' for minors should include access to contraception and sex education without necessarily involving parents.

In Florida they passed a law that if a child is looking for an abortion the parent must be notified, unless a judge okays not telling them for some specific reason (first round at least).

Laws currently assume absentee parents (when most parents are not that) taking away their rights (to know what is going on in a childs life) while maintaining with them both the legal and moral obligations. The voting parents in Florida revolted and I'm sure other states will follow.

Let me ask you one question. Why is sexual behavior different than any other behavior a child might express? If a child was doing drugs or drinking should we simply provide a safe environment to do it in. I've heard people actually say just that. Exactly how does a parent try to modify behavior for the better when the behavior is repeated over and over again despite any long heart to heart conversations and evident danger.

Answer: Children are grounded, watched more closely, priviledges (the car) taken away, additional activities are scheduled, the school is advised to monitor, drug tests are administered, funds are frozen (bank and allowances), friends screened more closely, other parents contacted, commitment to state juvenile detention services by parent (has been done and effectively so), parochial school, military school, moving from an area,... You get the idea.

These are the right an proper things for parents to do and yet the kids can still get to do the behavior they wish to express. But what can be done is put speed bumps in their way that should greatly reduce the number of times they actually get to risk themselves.

These kind of parental interventions in a childs life indicate a short term failed relationship that if possible should be mediated by a neutral third party at the appropriate time and not determined by the State.

When people say children are going to engage in sex no matter what you do and that lower age level keeps getting lowered, I begin to believe that we are dealing with people who are engaging in a kind of pedophelia by proxy kind of mentality. Harsh to say and probably not even realized by the proponents of non-intervention ideology.

AS FAR AS YOUNG GIRLS GETTING THEIR PERIODS EARLIER AND EARLIER. THAT BEGS THE QUESTION WHETHER BEING WITHIN A HYPERSEXUALIZED SOCIETY (EVEN WITH GOOD NUTRITION FACTORS) IS NOT DRIVING THIS PHENOMENON. YOU'D BE AMAZED AT HOW THE MENTAL ENVIRONMENT CAN DRIVE THE BIOLOGY OF THE HUMAN ORGANISM.

You misunderstand me thoroughly. I do not promote non-intervention. Health care providers are interveners often on a person's behalf. While waxing rageful about hyperseuxalization in our culture and simultaneously morally stampeding heath care rights for children, your arguments explicitly allow for children who choose to be sexually active (or worse, DON'T CHOOSE) to get pregnant. My arguments state: while we're trying to sort out these parental and societal complications in the raising of children, let's not have any 10-year-olds getting pregnant. If the behavior is occurring, let's be mindful of the health care rights provided to children and give them access to safe sex and sex education. You continue to assert myriad points as though I am saying something like "Let's emancipate all minors! Abortions and birth control free on every corner for people of any age! Screw parents, who needs them!" I have not said anything of the kind, and I believe if you'd more carefully read my statements about this issue, you will notice that time and time again, I am attempting to legally protect children from more harm in their lives - STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and the like. In essence, girls - not you, maybe not even girls' parents - should have some sort of control of their own bodies if they are for some reason in the position of having sexual relations. Alcohol use is illegal under the age of 21. Sex is not illegal, except in certain circumstances, of course. With the added knowledge of statutory rape, incest, or the ever-so-lovely fundamentalist Mormon approach (marry off 12-year-old girls to 70-something-year-old men) - the more options girls and women have to protect themselves from pregnancy and/or STDs without placing those girls at extreme risk by notifying parents (who very well may be the perpetrators engaging the girls in sex, by the way), I say, the better. While you're off picketing mass media, the porn industry, bad parenting, and all forms of female objectification (mind you, a worthy cause, though I have no problem with porn in theory), girls and young women - the ones you are claiming to be trying so desperately to protect - are getting pregnant.

Maybe you should read more carefully too.

You actually brought up the legality of alcohol use and whether sex is legal or not. You are mistaken if you think this is a discussion about whether childen's behavior is legal or not but rather if it is detrimental and if parents have an absolute right to know what their children are doing. The village in my opinion should warn the parent.

You'll note that I concede condoms should be available and am predominantly against the use of drugs for contraception purposes for actual medical concerns. What is alarming is your insistance that 10 year olds should have access to that drug at all for whatever semi-contrived reason.

You simulatneously say you arent' excluding parental involvement but that they have no rights that supercede the child's rights either. What nuance are you getting at?

Let me ask you something. If an adult caught a 10 year old child having consensual sexual contact with another 10 year old child should the parents of the children be told? If it were you would you tell the parents?

Aside from all you equally superflous items that could be listed against mine I think the parents absolute right to know is more in line with protecting the children. More parents are good parents than they are bad no matter what you might think on the matter.

A random adult coming across two 10 year olds having sexual contact is not comparable to health care providers maintaining confidentiality for their patients in matters concerning self-protection and self-education. Stop using personal anecdotal teasing to get me to agree with you. I don't believe in the dealth penalty, for example. And I would not believe in the dealth penalty even if someone murdered my sister. Pandering to my Spiker-imagined personal life in this discussion rather than stepping back and thinking about the legal and LIVED ramifications of denying confidential contraceptive health care for people you do not know, have no contact with, and who are potentially in at-risk, abusive, neglected, impoverished, and/or myriad other situations neither you nor I can fathom reveals to me that your personal feelings about 10 year olds having sex is clouding your ability to consider the relevance of patient-doctor consent and confidentiality in this regard. I just unequivocally disagree with your assertion that parents' 'right to know' should be privileged above a child's decision to seek medical assistance for what amounts to self-protection. Additionally, where on earth are you getting your information that many more parents are good parents than bad?* Is that just a 'feeling' you have or something you really hope is true? Additionally, parental guidance is not remotely the only aspect of influence in a child's life, and as children hit puberty and adolescence, this reality is more compelling. But, regardless of parents' potential 'goodness' or 'badness' - which is frankly another anecdotal/emotional tug attempt that seems overall tangential to this discussion of children's rights as individuals to seek confidential contraceptive health care, because parental styles and skills are widely divergent, ranging from great to mediocre to sadistic and illegal - I will state, once again, that while you wax rageful about youthful sexuality and champion parents' abilities to 'control' their children's adolescent behavior, young women are getting pregnant. *Who is responsible for the abuse and neglect? In FFY 2005, more than three-quarters of perpetrators of child maltreatment (79.4%) were parents, and another 6.8 percent were other relatives of the victim. Unrelated caregivers (foster parents, residential facility staff, child daycare providers, and legal guardians) accounted for less than 10.1 percent of perpetrators. Women comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men, 57.8 percent compared to 42.2 percent. More than three-fourths of all perpetrators were younger than age 40.

You write well but at the same time too much. You should get to the point quicker.

So, my rage is not at 10 year olds having sex it is at adults giving middle school aged students drugs because they are having sex and not telling parents about it. Get over you image that people who do not agree with you are puritanical and scrub down their children with wire brushes and scalding water when they catch them acting out sexaully.

Your stats say something about 6 million reports of abuse where 60% are unfounded leaving 3.6 million (with probably some repeats). And then there are like 60 million children aged 0-14. That is like 6% of all children are maltreated and so the parents of the vast majority of children appear to be okay. It doesn't seem to warrant handicapping them when it comes to raising their children.

Honestly I think advocating contraceptions in the types of cases you list are enabling the continued abuse of those minority children.