Beyond the headlines
By Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. (articles ) | Jan 19, 2005
This is why it pays to go beyond the headlines. This one says, "Study: Parental Consent Laws Affect Teen Sex." We might be tempted to say "Good" until we realize that it doesn't mean that it will encourage them to abstain. The first sentence says:
Laws that require federally funded clinics to notify parents if a minor wants to obtain prescription contraception may increase risky sexual behavior among teenagers, according to a new study conducted at a national sample of family planning clinics.And just who conducted this study? Why, it's the Alan Guttmacher Institute, part & parcel of the Planned Parenthood abortion empire. You don't think they have a vested interest in ensuring that teens have unfettered access to contraceptives and abortion, do you?
The article throws a bone to parents: "Although parents generally have the legal authority to make medical decisions about their children..." They don't just generally have authority, they have authority in all areas, except when it comes to abortion and sex. The radical pro-abortion lobby has declared that area off-limits to parents. By definition, being a minor means that you don't have the capacity to make serious judgments about weighty, life-changing matters, whether it be signing a legal contract or killing your unborn child. Not so, says the abortion lobby.
So they fret that if kids are denied access to contraception—without a parent's permission, which so many give so readliy nowadays anyway—they will refuse to seek medical attention for STDs or use contraception when they're having premarital sex. The assumption is, as always, that teens are no more than instinct-bound animals who cannot be expected to control the slightest impulse and who must always have sex when they want it.
But the reality is that when parental notification or permission is required, fewer kids might engage in sex at all. That's right, when there actually consequences for your actions, you might not engage in behavior that can lead to those consequences. Even dogs learn that quickly. But Planned Parenthood (including it's institute) is in the "removal of consequences" business. And so keeping kids away from contraception means that a larger number of them won't be getting pregnant. That's bad for PP's bottom line and for its ideological goal of "freeing" women from "bondage" to their fertility.
The study also claims that 18 percent of kids said they would engage in "risky sex" by not using any contraception if parental notification was mandated. Wait a minute, I thought that the Pill doesn't prevent STDs. Yet, the study says that a reaction to parental notification is to use condoms instead. According to the pro-abortion/AIDS lobby isn't condom use required anyway? Once again, the reality is that kids who are sexually active, whether they use condoms or the Pill are also very likely to have sex when they don't have a condom available or when she has forgotten to take her Pills. Sexual activity, with or without use of contraception, is still inherently riskier.
It's just another example of reading beyond the headlines and seeing the real story for what it is.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!