No way. Are you crazy? This is the same old nonsense we’ve heard from the left for years, “they are doing it anyway, so want them to be safe, blah blah blah blah.”

First of all, just because certain conduct is happening does not mean the taxpayers should be subsidizing it. Let them get jobs and buy their own birth control. Let them ask their parents to pay for it. If the parents agree, that is their choice. There is absolutely no justification to force the taxpayers to pay for it. None. Zero.

Government schools should not become a substitute for parents and a family. It’s really that simple. The duty of the government school is to teach the students certain specific subjects and skills (which in many cases it fails to do). That role does not include being an omnipresent nanny to see to the child’s every need and whim.

The government and government schools have already gotten tooo far involved in raising our children.
Before too long, when parents go to the hospital for delivery, the parents will go home alone and the hospital/government will release them when they reach the age of 22.

Agreed Daryl and Mike; and may I add that California does this. The pregnancy rate AND abortion AND VD rates are astronomical... Clinics in California schools are all funded by the citizens. Hello???? THIS JUST DOES NOT WORK!

An important aspect of the program, not mentioned here, is that the kids also have access to "Plan B" now.. . WITHOUT parental consent. So... any kids who ARE "on the fence" where sexual activity is concerned have just been pushed over to the "It's OK!" side because any "problems" can be eliminated. The message NYC is sending with these decisions? It's NOT OK to drink a 32oz soda... but it IS ok for kids to have sex... because we have safeguards in place. Seriously???

I suppose the next step is that the government schools will be either providing or paying for abortion services.

I doubt that the education bureaucrats will see the irony in aborting their future meal tickets.....er, I mean students.

There needs to be a thorough education in the schools by the time a child enters the 7th grade about all the possible chronic (ie herpes) and potentially deadly sexually transmitted diseases (ie syphillis, AIDS, and gonorrhea) and the potential repercussions of infertility and other issues from having sex too soon. All of this knowledge should scare these kids so thoroughly that they will wait many years before becoming sexually active. Sex education is key. Making contraceptives available without being taught about sexual responsibility towards oneself and others is not the entire answer for preventing teen pregnancies and diseases. When this type of education about STDs was provided to me in the public school system mainly through watching a film about all the diseases involved through having unprotected sex, I was so thoroughly educated and concerned for my own self-preservation that the awareness caused me to wait to have sex until I was well beyond high school age.

Kay, nobody "makes" teenagers do anything; surely you know that. I actually don't have an opinion about this. I don't want any kid to die from having sex, I don't want any kid to have to deal with the consequences of having sex. I also think that providing a contraceptive gives a mixed message. This is a tough one for me.

Why stop at providing contraception? How about schools provide a time a place during the school day for kids to have sex. Just kidding, of course. Distributing condoms along with proper sex education is an inexpensive way for schools to prevent a disaster. Abstinence education, though well intentioned, was ineffective even back when I was in grade school thirty years ago. Hasn't anyone figured out yet that forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest? Just telling kids to say no to anything is the surest way to picque their interest. Let's arm our children with the best information, provide protection from worst case scenarios, and leave the parenting up to the parents.

Absolutely not! Let the parents be parents and the schools teach math and science. I am tired of the public sector taking on the role of parents!

Unfortunately not all parents do parenting and we do not live in some perfect Ozzie and Harriet world. Teaching sex education in school has always been a hot topic and some parents opt out of it for their children. With children getting bombarded with sex from TV to the Internet how do you expect children with raging hormones to stay away from sexual activity? The statistics are out there regarding teenagers and sex, should we wish it away? Are you talking to your teenage children about sexual activity? Are you honest or are you trying to scare them? Children are growing up faster than ever before (age compression) and they may know more than you think. Being frank and honest with them is the best way to keep from making what you might consider to be bad decisions. In the case if NYC they have extremely high rates of teen pregnancies. As Mayor Bloomberg has said these teenage mothers seldom return to school and typically begin or continue a cycle of poverty. Society has to make some hard decisions regarding healthcare and in this case birth control for teens.

Sounds like 98% of the parents were fine with delegating this parental role to the government as only 1 to 2 percent of parents opted out of the program. Also, Minnesota teens currently can purchase or obtain condoms and birth control pills without parental consent. So the only change would be in the accessibility of these items. If a parent wants his teen to go to the local grocery store to buy condoms instead of the school nurse, all he'd need to do is inform the school of that decision and, for his child, the parental role remains with the parents.
Regarding the abortion comments, the most realistic way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. If you're anti-abortion, then logically you should be pro-birth control. But if you're really just anti-sex except for purposes of procreation, and you want the threat of unwanted pregnancy and disease to be a deterrent of sex simply for enjoyment, then I can understand your opposition to accessible birth control.
This website provides excellent information on the teen sex laws in each state. http://sexetc.org/states/minnesota/

I think it is a wonderful idea. The kids have already made the decision to be sexually active, regardless of what their parents believe or demand. The primary division I hear here is between parents who want to consider pregnancy, abortion, disease, and the termination of education as fitting and proper punishments for disobedient children, versus parents who believe that it is as important a responsibility for parents to protect their children from foolish mistakes as making and enforcing rules.

Many of you are missing the point. The issue is not the merits of birth control or abstinence or abortion.

The issue is whether it is the proper role of the government schools to spend our tax dollars to provide free birth control to minors. I say no.

Washburn High School's nurses already offer free condoms to students. I understand people feel like schools shouldn't be involved with students' sex lives, but I'm sure that Washburn's program has prevented many unintended pregnancies, therefore preventing many tragic abortions. People have to think of contraception as a method for preventing abortions because kids will have sex no matter what. I hope more schools take the initiative to prevent unintended pregnancies for the good of unborn children and for the health of teenage girls.

Daryl, would you support the program if the students paid for the condoms or pills? How about if private contributions did?

"According to a New York Times article, health officials said it has been met with little parent opposition, with only 1 to 2 percent of parents returning a form to opt out of the program."

(1) I wonder how the forms were sent to the parents,
(2) how the forms were to be returned, and
(3) what the response would have been if parents had to "opt-in" to the program.

Twilight, you would be wrong if you assumed that. Why, you may ask?

The definition of marriage is clearly a state law issue. It is the state's proper role to determine the definition of legal relationships such as marriage due to the statewide legal effects on inheritence, taxes, government benefits, and numerous other situations.

The proposed amendment does nothing more than confirm a pre-existing and traditional definition of marriage for legal status purposes under state law.

Twilight, good comment on Daryl's thoughts, he still doesn't get the irony of his disconnected and contradictory views of government's roll in our lives.

I'd prefer that this be funded privately, but of the billions of dollars wasted yearly in our public education sysyem it's nice to see that there's actually something in school that relates to the kids' lives. Those against this program have either forgotten what it's like to be that age or are totally hypocritical.
If you don't want your own kid to have sex that's fine, teach them your moral viewpoints and good luck to you. But the idea that the availability of birth control affects the decision to have sex is absolutely ludicrous. Personally, I don't want to pay for any more kids born to kids. A couple of bucks now versus a lifetime of subsidies for the child and the mother seems like a pretty good investment.

Absolutely not! Parent, keep track of where your children are and what they are doing

In the state of MN a "minor" child under the age of 18 cannot get a massage without parent concent, but they can walk into any planned parethood and get contraception without a parent's concent or knowledge. It's true. No child should be dispensed medication of ANY KIND without a parent's knowledge.

Abortion is the most effective form of birth control, works 100 percent of the time. Thats a better rate than abstinence which doesn't always work. ( Just ask Jesus' Mom)

The title of this article is, "Should Schools Provide Contraceptives to Students? Parents Talk"

Why don't we have one that says, "Should Schools Take Over All Parental Responsibility? Parents Talk.

Mass production is more efficient right? And then everyone would be parented in the exact same way, so you wouldn't have anyone getting indoctrinated with any pesky religion or anything like that. It would save so much time and money to do away with all of this expensive and inefficient individualism and personal responsibility.

Once again Nick, you want to protect everyone's individualism and insist on personal responsibility EXCEPT when they choose something you disagree with.
No one is making the kids take birth control or use condoms. The kids are CHOOSING to. What about the kids' individualism and personal responsibility. Being sexually active in your teen years is not a crime. You like history Nick. Historically, at what age did boys and girls become sexually active? People say that teens are so much more sexually active now. That's hogwash. If you go back 100 years, 500 years, 2000 years, a high percentage of women were married by age 18. If modern teens want to take personal responsibility for their sexual behavior decisions, that's great.

Nick, theses nitwits do not understand (or they don't care) that providing birth control to minors is far beyond the actual function of the government schools, which supposedly is to teach the students math, reading, english, etc.

I say that the government schools, as with all units of government, must be limited to their legitimate governmental functions. If we fail to limit them, taxation and spending will both necessarily skyrocket. We've seen that year after year. How that working out for us? Not so well if you work and pay taxes.

This isn't about BC it's about parental rights. The government is an entity. Not a parent.

I find this a interesting discussion. I find a lot of parents handle the aspect about talking to their kids sex is quite varied. Let's face it, Parents talking, or trying to talk, to their kids about that subject not only difficult for the parents, but their kids as well. Talking about sexual deceases, sexual intercourse is a really big topic. Some seem not to talk much about it, or are not able to get through all the necessary information kids should probably have, or some parents are not up on all the updated information. Some actually just tell their kids not to have sex "until" etc., while others try a bit harder. Usually, kids often talk to each other more then their parents, and those conversations would surprise most of us. I am not saying I am for or against, I am saying there is a reality that is much different then most of us would like to admit.

How can this issue be about parental rights? The parents can opt their teen out. The parents can prohibit people at the school from giving any birth control to their child. This program doesn't affect your kids. It would only affect kids that AREN'T yours. Your opposition is limiting the parental rights of those kids' parents.
There was another blog a few months ago about kids' curfews. I said that I wanted the freedom to set whatever curfew I see fit for my child. I got blasted. Where were the parental rights advocates then? Seems like you only want parental rights for people with the same parenting style as you. I think older teens should have some supervised experience with alcohol before they go off to college. Some of you parental rights people are probably thinking I shouldn't let my child do that.