It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: California Teen Privacy Law Raises Questions

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   
A California state law is pitting the rights of a parents to know what their kids are doing with their children’s rights to privacy. Under the law, California schools are forbidden from informing parents when their children leave class to get confidential medical treatment including abortion and drug treatment.

 



www.foxnews.com
SAN FRANCISCO — Does a teenager’s right to privacy trump a parent’s right to know when it comes to abortion? In California, the answer is “yes.”

California schools are forbidden from telling parents when their kids leave class to seek “confidential medical treatment” — including drug counseling and even abortion, according to the state attorney general’s office.

While schools must notify parents of the "Student Confidentiality Policy" at the start of each academic year, the reality is that eighth-graders could end a pregnancy, get an AIDS test or seek treatment for addiction during the school day without their knowledge or consent.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is a bad law in my opinion. Its initial intent as explained by the Attorney General was to protect victims of rape and incest who may not be able to or want a parent to know. However, if children are leaving school, parents have a right to know what and where their children are.




posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I think after say 16, this should be OK, but before that.. I don't know. Doesn't seem right.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
It is a bad law, and the reasons given for enacting it are pure bs. There are laws on the books which mandate medical personnel to notify the authorities if a crime has been committed, so this law is unnecessary. I am totally surprised that Ahhnold let this one pass. I'm glad that some school districts are refusing to follow the law.

Kids under the age of 18 do not have the same privacy rights as an adult, sorry to tell those who would love for it to be otherwise. There is a reason for laws protecting minors, and the "precocious, mature" teen will have to follow the same laws as the average teen.

These type of laws have the effect of destroying the family unit, and are pushed as part of a larger agenda by those who want to see America fall.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Children are entiltled to the same medical confidentiality as adults. Take that away and kids will not get help they need untill it is a crisis.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I must dissagree with FredT, Children do not have the same rights to medical confidentiallity when the parents are legally responsible for their care, wellbeing, and COST of this care.

The state already has the abillity to remove kids from parents should it become apparent that the child is in jeapordy for many reasons including health.

This law is bad because is assumes, before the fact, that the kids would not get the care if the parents knew. Thats alot of assumptivness before any situation exists. There are also as another mentioned, laws that require notification of authorities if wrong doing is evident....plus WHO assumes the responsabillity for the child if they are hit by a car while going to get the abortion, the school? Where does this liabillity fall? If it is the school, do tax payers know they have just assumed this potential liabillity?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Begging to differ Caz


In addition, the following categories of minors can consent to all,
or almost all, of their own health care (see pp. 8-14):
• Pregnant minors,
• Minors who are parents,
• Married minors and
• Emancipated minors.
Sometimes, mature minors also can consent to their own
health care.

When obtaining parental consent would interfere with a minor’s
access to care that ordinarily would require parental consent,
a health care provider often can treat the minor without parental
consent.

Teens



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   
this is a sensible piece of legislation, since the parent's choice should have nothing to do with the child's right to seek information and treatment (abortion, pre-natal care, etc.) in the event of a pregnancy. The parents' wishes just don't come into consideration when placed against the wish of the pregnant teen.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
FredT - where did you get the notion that children are entitled to the same medical confidentiality as adults? At what age do you believe the child's right to medical confidentiality goes into effect? What is the source of that right?

Most parents believe that so long as their children are under the parents' authority, the children do not have the same right of medical confidentiality as an adult. Nor should they. This seriously undermines parental authority and the family unit.

So, teachers decide that a child may leave school to have an abortion, get birth control, drug treatment, be treated for rape, etc., and then the teachers and schools conspire with the child to keep these things hidden from the parents. Maybe the teachers, principals, and governator ought to contribute monthly support money to the children's households since they want to usurp parental authority.

This promotes distrust and suspicion within the family unit. What a great way to condition children to have no qualms about informing on their parents! This teaches children to view government bureaucrats as parental substitutes just like communism, socialism, and even the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia. Why, with Homeland Security and all, what could be better than teaching citizens that government is their best friend. When the government assumes a position of the benevolent parent in the young student's psyche, then the risk of the good little sheeple questioning government decisions after they grow up is greatly reduced.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
emancipated minors, as well as married minors are no longer under their parents jurisdiction by law, so that makes sense, i believe that minors with children are also considered "emancipated" by law, so again their parents are no longer responsible for them....pregnant minors are extremely questionable in my view as the parents still are obligated for them legally.

the cases where minors can recieve care without parental concent pretty much fall into emergency care, where the life of the person would be in jeapordy by waiting for parental contact...im fine with emergency life saving care...better my kids life was risked thru surgery to save them, than letting them die because my cell phone was off.
NO elective surgeries or other medical treatments should be legal however without concent.

We constantly ask, "where are the parents", yet do things like this to take away the responsibillity and give it to whom? the state?
again, who assumes the liabillity here?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
We constantly ask, "where are the parents", yet do things like this to take away the responsibillity and give it to whom? the state?
again, who assumes the liabillity here?


How right you are! I was born and raised in Kalifornia, but am much happier now living in an area where I am still allowed to think for myself and not have the government tell me how I am allowed to raise my family.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   
It's official, neither I nor anyone else should send their kids to public school ever again. Home school is the remedy for those folks who can't allow the system control over their kids. I wouldn't have wanted kids in school before the NWO was in effect, now it's just ludicrous to think that anyone trusts those twisted f*%#s with their kids. I wouldn't trust a civil servant with my kid's dirty diapers. The whole system is compromised, from judicial to executive to industry to education to healthcare. It's all rotted out and most people haven't even noticed the stink. Unbelievable, no wait, believable but horrendous. Yeah.

Okay, enough blathering, on to my point: Isn't a minor still a minor? If their parents are responsible for them in the eyes of the law, and they ARE, then the parents should retain control over their kids. That's like saying, you are liable for the damage that dog does if it's let out, but you're not allowed to keep it in the house. Crap legislation just falls from the sky out on the west coast doesn't it? Hell, crap legislation falls from the sky just about everywhere on this earth. The question is, what to do about it.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
A law like this is a wonderful way to turn the world into the Jerry Springer show.

As is, many children in America are messed up, which is primarily due to lack of parenting. Putting the kids in front of the TV, Computer, or having nannies who they can't communicate with has been a replacement for parenting for quite some time now. Many times in juvenile courts this is used as an excuse for a child's bad behavior. Now the courts encourage the situation.

I think some of you are missing the point here. A child is not capable of making responsible decisions about anything, let alone their own health. I'm not talking about individual cases (there are always exceptions) and I'm not picking a number of 18 yrs as opposed to 16 yrs either. What I am saying though is that if a parent knew their son had OD'd on crack, or their daughter had an abortion at age 13, perhaps that would be a wakeup call to get more involved in their lives. This law will murder children, guaranteed, because all you'll have now is Mommy and Daddy at the autopsy finding out their kid had 2 abortions, HIV, a coke problem and the school knew about it the whole time.

You want to trust a kid who's focus is having fun to take care of health issues they don't understand? This law will result in deaths, make no mistake.

Side note: In NY state, if a minor calls an ambulance (barring a critical emergency like a gunshot wound) a parent or legal guardian MUST be contacted. That is the law. And that is the responsible law. What if the kid is unconcious and faces a decision like amputate or risk death? Who makes that decision? The stoner friends? The school who kept it a secret?

Laws pertaining to medical care should be drafted by medical personnel, not ignorant legislators or ignorant privacy advocates. You know nothing so say nothing. Words to live by.

[edit on 1-3-2005 by Djarums]



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Hmm trust America to make a big hoohar over this, in the UK confidentuality for patients under 18 is common practise...I'm 16 (and maturity shall not come into it). I know from experience (being a volunteer for my old college councilling service, student rep and connextions volunteer) that without confidentual rules alot of teenagers would be 'up the spout' as it were. Do any of you know a teenager that's ever had a HIV scare, possible pregnancy, depression? Because I do; and alot more besides. On top of this the ones that seek help away from their parents tend to be the ones that can't goto their parents, and when they do seek help they often then goto them after they've cleared their head. Don't be so quick to judge.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Being against this is understandable. However, the ultimate consideration is free will. America as much as it seems it is, is not a police state. A parents job is to be a parent. If that parent raises their child to believe its ok to tell them the truth about where they've been then it is the childs, not the parents free will that will speak what they have been up to. You would hope every family could be like that, but alot are not. It is no more right to say a person who has gone through puberty cannot keep certain events in their life private from their parents than it is to police a childs free will in their sense of maturity. Maturity has no age attached to it, and it is not defined as an event in life with a starting date. If children had to tell their parents they went to an abortion clinic do you think that would've stopped the event that brought them there in the first place? I believe giving adolesants the right to privacy on merits like these is the better of two evils. Chances are if the family is a good one the parent will know about it at some point. That is I believe a sign of maturity within the "child".



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Three words can sum it all up! Only in California!

Nothing against California, but some of the laws that are legislated on the west coast seem out of balance with what is morally right.

I have two sons, 13 and 15. Both are straight-A, honor students and we have a close relationship as to where they'll confide in me any crisis that may arise in their young lives. They don't get into any trouble at school and upon their own choice, they don't hang around the "bad elements" that will eventually become a burden on society (e.g. jail-bound, low-life losers)!

Until the reach the age where they can support themselves, I'm responsible for their whereabouts and actions. I'm truly blessed that I know the whereabouts of my two sons because they want me to know what they're doing and where they're at all times.

jsobecky, dubiousone, CazMedia, Allan Hildebrandt, WyrdeOne, Djarums: praise to you all for your responses!



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
It's not about the sixteen year old girl that gets pregnant and doesn't have it in her to tell her parents. It's about the 15 year old that challenges this ruling next year, than the 13 year old the year after that. Sooner or later parents have no consent over their children. With the mandatory mental health screenings for ALL children waiting in the wings, which could greatly increase the number of children being misdiagnosed and medicated, just who has control of the countries children? How far is it going to go? We all know that the government runs a tight ship - they must know what's best for "the children". God forbid letting parents be parents.

From the piece I linked to:


Ron Paul:
Parents must do everything possible to retain responsibility and control over their children’s well-being. There is no end to the bureaucratic appetite to rule every aspect of our lives, including how we raise our children. Forced mental health screening is just the latest of many state usurpations of parental authority: compulsory education laws, politically-correct school curricula, mandatory vaccines, and interference with discipline through phony “social services” agencies all represent assaults on families. The political right has now joined the political left in seeking the de facto nationalization of children, and only informed resistance by parents can stop it. The federal government is slowly but surely destroying real families, but it is hardly a benevolent surrogate parent.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
All parents should be able to speak or be spoken to by their children about the places they go until they move out or reach the age of legal adulthood. I believe every parent who has fought for a good life for their child deserves to know if their child has gone to an abortion clinic, etc. What I see nothing wrong with is a law that protects an adolesents right to keep that as part of their life if they do not wish their parents to be involved. I'm not more for the child or the parent of that child when thinking of what could happen from this law. I do say even if a child makes a decision in their life they may even regret for the rest of their lives; it was their choice to make. The only difference I see between the ability of children to start making decisions like that by themselves now as opposed to thousands of years ago is that children are "cottled" to a much later point in life these days. Parents shouldn't have to fear being "straight up" with their kids. If this happened more kids likely wouldn't feel they had to keep things so hush hush with their parents because they would know they "understood" without prejudice what they were going through. And I do believe there can be prejudice by a parent in these situations. I don't think even as open ended as California seems to be this issue wouldv'e been considered if it weren't.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
This is a ridiculous law... in my opinion as long as you are depending on parents to live you are not "independent"...the funny thing is ... they pass this law, but as soon as the teens get in trouble they blame the parents for not knowing what their kids are doing ???


with so many REAL problems to solve and so many crimes in need of more severe laws... the time and money is wasted on the "teen privacy"...they'll get privacy when they pay their own bills.

and that is THAT !



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:42 AM
link   
When it comes to meical treatment i think teens should have the privacy given to adults. Teens are reclusive and dont like their parents interfering in their lives. If they cannot get treatment without their parents consent, many will just not undergo treatment at all...

Also if a young girl is pregnant and wants an abortion, and is afraid to let her parents know. If she cant get treatment independently, she may try to abort the child herself... this is something you do not want happening.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   
The issue of a child/teen minor not feeling they can go to their parents with an issue is CRAP! Because either the teen KNOWS they have done something that is not approved of by parents and FEARS the concequences
OR that indeed the parents abillity to communicate and "deal" with the situation is less than desirable in NO WAY NEGATES the parents of said child/teen responsibillity for and to that child/teen.

The child/teen not going to parents out of fear only exemplifies their lack of adult judgment skill development. Adults are supposed to take responsibillity for their actions...its called ACCOUNTABILLITY, weather doing so is pleasent or not is irrelavent.

If the teen needs medical treatment and hides this from parents, again this shows a lack of adult judgment skills as they are not acknowleging the condition enough to make the judgment thats in their best interest.

This is exactly why those responsible for the child/teen need to be in the loop....it doesnt matter if the child/teen likes it or not...
children often dont like the dicipline they get whats new...now this is an excuse for removing parents rights?
please spare me the teen angst..been there did it, done that.
you know what? when i was that age i thought i knew it all too...
boy was i stupid then.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join