SFUSD to consider distributing condoms at middle schools

[Dos Equis]

Give condoms to kids not old enough to consent to sex.  Brilliant. 

SFUSD to consider distributing condoms at middle schools
By Laura Dudnick on February 1, 2016
 
San Francisco’s public schools leaders are considering distributing condoms at middle schools.

The policy change, introduced by San Francisco Unified School District Superintendent Richard Carranza to the Board of Education earlier this month, is part of an overall effort by the district to further prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy among minors. The board’s augmented curriculum and program committee is scheduled to discuss the proposal today.

The board first adopted a policy to distribute condoms at high schools in 1991, and in 1996 the board amended the district’s condom distribution program to allow parents to opt out or exclude their child from the program.

In addition to supplying condoms at middle schools, the superintendent’s recommended changes include eliminating the exemption option for parents, according to the proposal introduced at the Jan. 12 board meeting. Parents would still be notified annually about the program.

Condoms are provided to the schools from the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and are packaged with educational and instructional materials. Middle school students would need to meet with a school social worker or district nurse before receiving condoms.

Commissioner Rachel Norton, who is a member of the committee that will discuss the issue today, said that while she has questions about the proposed changes, she’s inclined to support making condoms more widely available to students if it encourages them to practice safer sex.

“I think that to the extent that our Healthy Kids Survey finds that kids are actually engaging in sexual behavior in middle school, then we want to make sure that they’re as safe as they can be, and as well-educated as they can be about the implications of that,” Norton said.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sfusd-consider-distributing-condoms-middle-schools/

[240 is Back]

disgusting.  But it's states' rights.  If they want to raise disease-ridden disasters, it's their choice.

Just as I do not want the federal govt telling me what to eat, who to bang, what should be in my school lunch - I don't want them legislating sexuality.   If this local school does it, and the people hate it, they'll vote the local sickos out.  Or they won't.

Either way, however the deviants of SF choose to live, it's none of my business.  States' rights

[Dos Equis]

Nothing in the story indicates the federal government is trying to regulate what the school system is trying to do, so "state's rights" has nothing to do with this.  Somebody needs a basic civics lesson. 

[Coach is Back!]

NAACP

[240 is Back]

NAACP

huh?

[avxo]

I just can't be terribly bothered by this. If kids are going to be sexually active (and I agree that it's dumb for them to be sexually active at that age, but kids do dumb things all the time!) then I'd rather they have convenient access to protection and accurate information on why it is important.

[OzmO]

Give condoms to kids not old enough to consent to sex.  Brilliant. 

SFUSD to consider distributing condoms at middle schools
By Laura Dudnick on February 1, 2016
 
San Francisco’s public schools leaders are considering distributing condoms at middle schools.

The policy change, introduced by San Francisco Unified School District Superintendent Richard Carranza to the Board of Education earlier this month, is part of an overall effort by the district to further prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy among minors. The board’s augmented curriculum and program committee is scheduled to discuss the proposal today.

The board first adopted a policy to distribute condoms at high schools in 1991, and in 1996 the board amended the district’s condom distribution program to allow parents to opt out or exclude their child from the program.

In addition to supplying condoms at middle schools, the superintendent’s recommended changes include eliminating the exemption option for parents, according to the proposal introduced at the Jan. 12 board meeting. Parents would still be notified annually about the program.

Condoms are provided to the schools from the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and are packaged with educational and instructional materials. Middle school students would need to meet with a school social worker or district nurse before receiving condoms.

Commissioner Rachel Norton, who is a member of the committee that will discuss the issue today, said that while she has questions about the proposed changes, she’s inclined to support making condoms more widely available to students if it encourages them to practice safer sex.

“I think that to the extent that our Healthy Kids Survey finds that kids are actually engaging in sexual behavior in middle school, then we want to make sure that they’re as safe as they can be, and as well-educated as they can be about the implications of that,” Norton said.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sfusd-consider-distributing-condoms-middle-schools/

the first i would ask is are there significant increases in sexuality transmitted deceases and pregnancies in middle school kids there?

[Dos Equis]

the first i would ask is are there significant increases in sexuality transmitted deceases and pregnancies in middle school kids there?

I would hope not, because that would mean 12-14 year old kids are having sex, or more accurately, being sexually assaulted. 

[OzmO]

I would hope not, because that would mean 12-14 year old kids are having sex, or more accurately, being sexually assaulted. 

I would hope not too.    But is it happening and does it warrant a response?

[240 is Back]

I would hope not, because that would mean 12-14 year old kids are having sex, or more accurately, being sexually assaulted. 

if you avoid awareness of it, then you don't have to address it.  better not to ask the question, right?

[Dos Equis]

I would hope not too.    But is it happening and does it warrant a response?

I don't know about the frequency, but if it is happening, then yes it warrants a response.  The response should be to prevent it from happening, not enable or encourage it to continue. 

[Dos Equis]

if you avoid awareness of it, then you don't have to address it.  better not to ask the question, right?

Better not to ask if kids are being sexually assaulted?  What kind of sick mofo are you?   

[OzmO]

I don't know about the frequency, but if it is happening, then yes it warrants a response.  The response should be to prevent it from happening, not enable or encourage it to continue. 

How do you do that?

[240 is Back]

The response should be to prevent it from happening,

not even trolling here...

how do you do that?  Yes, good parenting is the answer, but from a societal viewpoint, when there is shitty parenting/neglect, don't you just have to step back and let people make their own choices?

i've been a middle school teacher, and i saw kids with zero accountability/morals who would be allowed to leave home for days at a time, and be promiscuous as they wanted.  Age 14 is 8th or 9th grade, many are active at that point.

if we don't teach them how to do it safely,
and we don't intervene because "i don't want the gubmint telling me how to raise my kid",
then what is the solution?  How do you "prevent" it, as you suggested?

[Dos Equis]

How do you do that?

By enforcing the law and protecting the victims.  If a 12 or 13 year old has had sex, he/she has been sexually assaulted, because they cannot consent. 

[OzmO]

By enforcing the law and protecting the victims.  If a 12 or 13 year old has had sex, he/she has been sexually assaulted, because they cannot consent.  

They are not enforcing the law?

And if they did that would stop 12-13 year old kids from having sex?

And how would they stop it from happening?

[Dos Equis]

They are not enforcing the law?

And if they did that would stop 12-13 year old kids from having sex?

And how would they stop it from happening?

They are not enforcing the law when they give condoms to 12-13 year olds.  They are encouraging them to break the law.  It's a mixed message. 

We cannot completely stop people (including young people) from breaking the law.  But what we shouldn't be doing is giving them any kind of signal that breaking the law, creating victims, etc. is ok.  California has decided, rightfully so, that 12-13 years cannot consent to sex.  The government should not then give those same kids tools that facilitate engaging in conduct that is considered rape in California.   

To me, this is similar to Planned Parenthood encouraging young rape victims not to report the fathers of their babies. 

[Skeletor]

How do you do that?

They could try sending them to a christian church and have a bishop watch over them. Oh wait...

[avxo]

They are not enforcing the law when they give condoms to 12-13 year olds.  They are encouraging them to break the law.  It's a mixed message.

Giving kids information and, after talking to a nurse or social worker, access to condoms isn't encouraging them to break the law. It's an attempt to ensure that if some kids are dumb and become sexually active at that age, they can, hopefully, be smart enough to protect themselves from diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

We cannot completely stop people (including young people) from breaking the law.

Right.

But what we shouldn't be doing is giving them any kind of signal that breaking the law, creating victims, etc. is ok.

"access to condoms after talking to a health professional" = "signal that it's OK to break the law"

California has decided, rightfully so, that 12-13 years cannot consent to sex.  The government should not then give those same kids tools that facilitate engaging in conduct that is considered rape in California.

Yeah... and lets nix sex education too. When it's legal for them to have sex, then they can learn all about it. Or is information different?

And while we're on the topic, what about parents who say to their kids: "Don't be stupid and have sex, but if you do, here's a box of condoms. USE THEM!" Is that faciliating rape?

Or what about parents who take their 13 or 14 year old daughter to a gynecologist to discuss birth control options? Is that facilitating rape?

  

To me, this is similar to Planned Parenthood encouraging young rape victims not to report the fathers of their babies.

Right... providing condoms = "don't report a rape!"

[Dos Equis]

Giving kids information and, after talking to a nurse or social worker, access to condoms isn't encouraging them to break the law. It's an attempt to ensure that if some kids are dumb and become sexually active at that age, they can, hopefully, be smart enough to protect themselves from diseases and unwanted pregnancies.


Right.


"access to condoms after talking to a health professional" = "signal that it's OK to break the law"


Yeah... and lets nix sex education too. When it's legal for them to have sex, then they can learn all about it. Or is information different?

And while we're on the topic, what about parents who say to their kids: "Don't be stupid and have sex, but if you do, here's a box of condoms. USE THEM!" Is that faciliating rape?

Or what about parents who take their 13 or 14 year old daughter to a gynecologist to discuss birth control options? Is that facilitating rape?

  
Right... providing condoms = "don't report a rape!"

I disagree.  We're not just talking about kids becoming sexually active.  We're talking about kids who cannot consent to sex. 

Yes, giving 12-13 year old kids condoms is sending a mixed message about whether they can actually consent to sex. 

Nobody said anything about nixing sex education.   

[OzmO]

They are not enforcing the law when they give condoms to 12-13 year olds.  They are encouraging them to break the law.  It's a mixed message. 

We cannot completely stop people (including young people) from breaking the law.  But what we shouldn't be doing is giving them any kind of signal that breaking the law, creating victims, etc. is ok.  California has decided, rightfully so, that 12-13 years cannot consent to sex.  The government should not then give those same kids tools that facilitate engaging in conduct that is considered rape in California.   

To me, this is similar to Planned Parenthood encouraging young rape victims not to report the fathers of their babies. 

So you have no solution to stop it and as result pregnancies and STD will continue because you think its a mixed message to give them something that will stop it.

[Dos Equis]

So you have no solution to stop it and as result pregnancies and STD will continue because you think its a mixed message to give them something that will stop it.

Do I have a solution to stop kids who cannot consent to sex from having sex?  Of course not.  Do you have a solution to crime in this country?  Who does?   

First you ask whether pregnancies and STDs are a problem or increasing with 12-13 year olds, now you state it as a fact. 

And you don't pursue bad policy simply because you don't have a solution to stop an existing (potential) problem.  That's how we got Obamacare.  A bad law doesn't fix a problem.  It's makes things worse.   

[OzmO]

Do I have a solution to stop kids who cannot consent to sex from having sex?  Of course not.  Do you have a solution to crime in this country?  Who does?   

defelction

First you ask whether pregnancies and STDs are a problem or increasing with 12-13 year olds, now you state it as a fact. 

incorrect. I asked if they increasing and if thats the reason for the action

And you don't pursue bad policy simply because you don't have a solution to stop an existing (potential) problem.  That's how we got Obamacare.  A bad law doesn't fix a problem.  It's makes things worse.   

How does it make it worse if what you are doing helps prevents pregnancies and STDs?  Encouraging them would be like giving them porn.

So my statement about your position still stands:

You have no solution to stop it and as result pregnancies and STD will continue because you think its a mixed message to give them something that will stop it.

[Dos Equis]

defelction
incorrect. I asked if they increasing and if thats the reason for the action

How does it make it worse if what you are doing helps prevents pregnancies and STDs?  Encouraging them would be like giving them porn.

So my statement about your position still stands:

You have no solution to stop it and as result pregnancies and STD will continue because you think its a mixed message to give them something that will stop it.

Ok.  I know your drill.  I'm not going to start going in circles.  lol  I didn't deflect anything.  I specifically said I don't have a solution to a problem that you are unable to quantify.  I was also pointing out that neither you nor anyone else has a solution to crime, so your question is pretty meaningless.  In fact, it's a form of projection that allows you not to answer. 

So do you know if the problem is actually a problem and whether it's increasing or not? 

And I stand by my position that bad policy doesn't improve a bad situation.

[OzmO]

Ok.  I know your drill.  I'm not going to start going in circles.  lol  I didn't deflect anything. 

Yeah you did.  compared to stopping crime.

I specifically said I don't have a solution to a problem that you are unable to quantify.  I was also pointing out that neither you nor anyone else has a solution to crime, so your question is pretty meaningless.  In fact, it's a form of projection that allows you not to answer. 

Its not meaningless at all. Its the whole point.

So do you know if the problem is actually a problem and whether it's increasing or not? 

And I stand by my position that bad policy doesn't improve a bad situation.

So less pregnancies and STD among 12-13 year olds doesn't improve a bad situation?   ok lol