Cause being a teenager just isn’t hard enough--let’s add some humiliation and rescind privacy rights while we’re at it!
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
A bill that seeks to overhaul Missouri's child abuse reporting laws could require teachers, doctors, nurses and others to report sexually active teenagers and children to the state's abuse hot line...
...Critics say the bill offers confusing and unnecessary changes to a law that has been in place for years. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Richard Byrd, R-Kirkwood, said the legislation offers a needed fix to a child abuse reporting law that has recently been contested in court.
Perhaps the most controversial provision of the bill is one that many say would require educators, medical personnel and other professionals to report "substantial evidence of sexual intercourse by an unmarried minor under the age of consent."
Critics say the language would, in essence, require child abuse reports even of cases of consensual sex between two teens...
...Otto Fajen, a lobbyist for the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, said the bill, as written, could stifle the ability of teachers and counselors to speak candidly to teens about sexual activity. Fajen said that by forcing teachers to always report sexual activity as abuse, the law removes sound professional judgment of what constitutes abuse.
I’ve always had an issue with consent laws; not that they exist, but how they’re implemented and the implication that young women can’t make decisions concerning their sexuality.
But this goes beyond any theory arguments on women and agency; it’s a straight up violation of privacy shrouded in rhetoric about protecting kids. Is this a trend? Number one asshole Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, who is seeking the medical records of women who’ve had abortions, claims that he’s just looking for evidence of child rape.
Wow I’m sure glad all these big, strong government men are protecting us! Puh-leeze.
Go to Feministe and Bitch Ph.D. for more.
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
The only privacy they are trying to violate is the kids who are being abused and taken advantage of.
Teens are being forced into sexual awareness much too young in this country.
http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2005/03/12/the_disappearing_tween_years?pg=2
Are you honestly saying that teen girls should be allowed to just have sex with whomever they choose? Do you think women(or boys for that matter) at that age are capable of making fully informed decisions about their bodies? I don't believe they do.
There is a reason why the drinking age is 21 and the voting age is 18. Also, there is a reason why an age of consent exists. I find it odd that feminists as a group oppose girls getting married at age 14, but you seem to imply that it's perfectly accpetable for them to have all the sex they desire.
*Are you honestly saying that teen girls should be allowed to just have sex with whomever they choose?*
Yes.
*Do you think women(or boys for that matter) at that age are capable of making fully informed decisions about their bodies?*
So long as they haven't been taking abstinence only education classes, I think that many teenagers are capable of deciding when to have sex and with whom. Sex is complicated emotionally, physically, etc. at any age. So long as teens are educated and making decisions based on their desires I'm all for it.
tfreridge, the article in the Globe was fact-challenged. Much of it was subjective observations that "kids grow up so much faster these days," which echo things I heard about my generation, and the one before that. Then, they bemoan the disappearance of the "tween" years, a marketing term invented five years ago!
Then, they say that kids don't think oral sex is sex. IIRC, that's your position. Then, they say that respondents to a magazine survey overwhelmingly would _not_ have sex with someone they just met- we're not talking about have, we're talking "would." Discount the 19% for opportunity and bravado, and you're down to a non-shocking number.
Finally, they say that very young girls draw the sexual attention of adult men. Ask Lauren at Feministe about that -- it's not new. Or La Lubu, who comments here occasionally, who got these kinds of advances in her pre-teen years, and has been an electrician for almost two decades. You do the math.
That was a "scare the parents" feature. It offers little support for your position.
I'm in favor of statutory rape laws because the value of protecting girls from coersion by adult men is so great that I think it outweighs the paternalistic effect. I think these statutes always ought to have "Romeo and Juliet" staging, however. Why? Because sexual conduct with similar age partners is a good thing. That's how virtually all of us learned -- with consenting partners about the same age. Now, instead of letting parents work it out as they always have, this legislation proposes to interject the government into the consensual (I mean actually, not the legal fiction) conduct of kids in their early teens?
Madness.
Doctors need to have client confidentiality. Just as priests in the confessional do. I don't have a problem with researchers or the courts accessing medical records as long as it's done with consent and in some cases may be done so without displying the identity. But without patient confidentiality teens will avoid getting medical treatment, and that's dangerous.
As to kids having sex, it isn't a good idea. Better to delay sexual activity, but if it's happening, then better to have a doctor's advice if nothing else.
Tfreridge, It might be a little off-topic, but you did bring it up as an argument...I really don't understand why the voting age is 18 and the drinking age is 21. You say 18 year olds are capable of making an informed decision on who to vote for, but are not mature enough to drink responsibly? For that matter, they are allowed to vote and go and die for their country at 18, but not mature enough to have a cocktail? That logic is, well, illogical.
I notice the change in the law discussed does not include parents...so all of the resposibility would be placed on "professionals"....not a good thing.
Please note that the Missouri bill is part of an overall strategy by anti-choice groups to limit minors' access to birth control and confidential health services, an important step on the way to making all abortions illegal. LifeDynamics.com claims to have uncovered a "cover-up of child sex abuse" by Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation, which both assure clients of confidentiality. (Please see: http://www.plannedparenthoodexposed.com/) LifeDynamics markets their "research" to anti-choice organizations to call for criminal actions against abortion clinics that refuse to disclose information about underage clients. LifeDynamics.com also provides direct mailing products to "help the pro-life side win." They are also behind efforts to solicit lawsuits against school districts which refuse to report sexually-active teenagers as child abusers. Both the Indiana and Kansas attorneys general have stepped up efforts to have abortion providers report any minor under age 16 who seeks an abortion.
Let's not miss the big picture here, folks!
Terri-
Recent studies have shown that the parts of the brain that affect risk assessment are not fully formed in men until as late as 25 yrs(a fact which the insurance industry extrapolated from statistics years ago).
Because of this drunk boys under at least 21 are exceptionaly dangerous on the roads. By the same logic , they make excellent soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
I don't think anyone would argue at all about the differences between the logical consideration of who to vote for, and impulsive risk assessment.
Since you can't really outlaw alchohol to just boys (sexism, y'know), they have to outlaw it for everyone, but as you can see by the preponderence of night clubs that allow woman 18 and up but not men under 21 it is understood at a social level that woman are not a huge risk when drinking (except for sexual risk, which is another matter entirely, and unfortunately promoted by our culture).