Supreme Court Ruling on School Strip Searches – And What It Means

Plan B for 17 year olds: Risky?

Mike Galanos wrote an opinion piece for the CNN asserting that Plan B is risky for 17 year olds. His argument, however, doesn’t hold water. Let’s take a look at it, bit by bit:

Think of a 17-year-old girl. Most of the time she’s a high school senior, still living at home with Mom and Dad.

Ok, thinking, thinking… got it: A 17 year old girl, terrified to admit to her parents that she not only has sex (gasp!), but had unprotected sex. Will she take the chance at pregnancy to avoid telling her parents? Yeah, probably.

She still needs her parents in the tough times. But they will be cut out of a traumatic situation.

Wait, what’s traumatic here? The sex? That’s not traumatic. Unprotected sex? Not traumatic, as long as it doesn’t result in pregnancy. So, actually, we’re preventing a traumatic situation.

Now keep in mind birth control pills require a doctor’s prescription, but a drug that is more powerful doesn’t?

Ok – so maybe we should make birth control pills over the counter too? And, also, while Plan B is more powerful per pill, but birth control is a much more serious health concern because you’re on it for weeks, months, years. The depression and other things that can result from birth control isn’t really a risk with Plan B.

Some argue that a girl can get an abortion without parental notification in some states, so why not Plan B? But just because those states got it wrong by leaving parents out of the loop doesn’t mean others should follow suit.

Let’s make sure we can follow his argument here (where the “>” means “more serious than”): Abortion > Plan B > Birth control pills. States allow abortion without parental consent, but that doesn’t imply allowing Plan B. But, earlier, he basically used the opposite logic: if states don’t allow birth control, why would they allow a more serious drug? Inconsistent logic.

In most states, minors can’t get a tattoo, body piercings or go to a tanning salon without a parent’s permission, but we are going to leave them alone to take Plan B.

Well, yes, this makes sense because of the consequences of not providing access to Plan B: pregnancy. What’s the consequence of not providing access to tattoos?

Timing is essential to the drug’s effectiveness, Plan B supporters say, so getting parents and doctors involved would unnecessarily delay the teen’s ability to pop the pill the “morning after.” Does it really take that long to get a prescription?

First, it can take a while if it’s on a weekend (and teens do have this tendency to have sex on weekends). Second, it would unnecessarily prevent the teen from telling her parents. Do you not know teenage girls? They don’t really like getting grounded or barred from seeing their boyfriends.

The New York Times reports that since 18-year-olds were allowed to get Plan B without a prescription in 2006, there has been no evidence of it having an effect on the country’s teen pregnancy or abortion rates.

True, but they also showed no increase in risky behaviors. So, 1 point for each side here.

We’re enabling teenagers to act carelessly with an easy way out.

Yeah! Let’s punish them with unplanned pregnancy! Brilliant!

“Teenagers are known for thinking they’re untouchable and here we are saying that they can continue to do that and that there aren’t any consequences.”

Ah, so you admit that teens tend to think that nothing bad could happen to them? So, given that attitude, if they have unprotected sex, will they tell their parents so that they can get Plan B? I didn’t think so.

The boyfriend will talk his girlfriend into unprotected sex with the promise of buying the “morning after pill” the next day.

Please, show me some data stating that this is a concern. Last I checked, boys were also scared of pregnancy – especially since, as you stated, Plan B is only 89% effective. (In fact, boys might be more scared of pregnancy, since they don’t get any say in abortion.)

Yes, this could encourage unprotected sex and that means a greater risk for sexually transmitted diseases.

(A) Studies have shown that it doesn’t increase promiscuity. (B) Isn’t Plan B like $40 a pop? I don’t think people are going to really rely on this as their sole method of birth control.

What about the 17-year-old girl who may get Plan B for her 15-year-old sophomore friend?

What about it? I’m ok with that, since it’s certainly better than the 15 year old not taking it at all.

Yes, teens have sex and difficult situations will arise, but should we open the door for our girls to go through this alone? That is not what is best for our daughters.

See, here’s the thing: Plan B supporters are trying to make sure your daughters don’t have to go through “this” at all (where “this” is an unplanned pregnancy).

And, allow me to make a few additional points:

1. The average age in the US for people to lose their virginity is about 17. So to say that parents need to be informed that their 17 year old is having sex is a little extreme. If you have a 17 year old, they’re probably having sex. This is not a crisis that needs to be averted. It’s normal.
2. When a 17 year old girl has to chose between taking Plan B and informing her parents, and not taking it at all, she just wouldn’t take Plan B. So, the parents won’t be informed that their teen is having sex anyway.
3. It’s not that I want parents to be uninformed. It’s that I don’t want unplanned pregnancies. Given that, I’ll take uninformed parents and fewer unplanned pregnancies.
4. In an entire article about why 17 year olds should need a prescription to get Plan B, Galanos never even responds to the core reason why many people disagree. That’s a rather glaring omission.

Strip Search at School: Was it assault?

I often debate as to whether this blog should be strictly tech-based, but then I read these articles that, well, get to me. To change the statistic that 25% of women are sexually assaulted, people need to start talking about it.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard argument on a case where a 13 year old girl – an honor student who had never been in trouble – was strip searched at school because she was suspected of having ibuprofen. Now, if that doesn’t infuriate you already, listen to the facts of the case:

Redding says she was then asked to strip down to her underwear and stood there while the nurse and secretary inspected her clothes and shoes.

“Then, you know, I thought they were going to let me put my clothes back on, but instead they asked me to pull out my bra and shake it, and the crotch on my underwear, too,” Redding says.

Redding says her whole body was visible to the school administrators. She kept her head down so the nurse and the secretary couldn’t see her fighting back tears.

And all this for what is basically Advil. Ugh.

This was more than a strip search. This was assault:

1. A young girl was forced to show her private parts.
2. The school did not search the girl’s locker or desk, but they did search the girl’s crotch.
3. The harm in traumatizing a girl far outweighs the harm of a couple of students from taking ibuprofen.

When you look at these facts, you see that the school’s search was not conducted in a way to find the ibuprofen (since they didn’t search the girl’s locker or desk), nor did they balance the harm of an invasive search against the risks of mild pain killers. Thus, it seems that the administrators were on a powertrip that ended in assaulting a girl.

I hope that the Supreme Court makes the right decision. While there is a time and place to do strip searches (eg, in jail), school officials are not trained to do so. If you think a student poses that much of a danger that an invasive search is required, then call the cops. Strip searches should never be conducted by school officials.

A Googly Peek into Racism

Racism is rampant. Maybe this election has made people less racist, maybe it hasn’t. At the very least, I hope that it has made people realize that, yes, racism is still very much alive. As a quick illustration, check out the top 10 Google search suggestions for Obama: 30% are race-related issues: “birth certificate”, “muslim” and “antichrist”.

The most frustrating part is that people don’t even see the racism and sexism. A Google coworker who had a “Hillary Nutcracker” displayed in his office window – he probably didn’t think about how that’s dripping with sexism. Nor did the Republican friend who asked online for one good thing that “Barack HUSSEIN Obama” has ever done. Nor does the other friend who asserts that Colin Powell only endorsed Barack Obama because he’s black.

We don’t see these things because we see them all too often. We’ve become immune to it. It’s time that we wake up and call these things out for the racist, sexist acts that they are.

Time Calls Rape Case "Sexy and Surreal"

McKinney, charged with kidnapping and rape over thirty years ago, has recently emerged. Time Magazine tells us that in the winter of 1977, McKinney and a friend kidnapped a Mormon missionary by the name of Anderson, whom McKinney had been stalking since their relationship ended in 1975. Anderson was chained to a bed for three days and raped repeatedly by McKinney.

In an odd – if not shocking – choice of words, Time Magazine describes the details as “sexy and surreal”. Instead of calling it rape, Time calls it “forcibly having sex.” It’s also called a “sex scandal.”

So how could Time possibly describe an abduction and rape this way? The rapist was a woman and the victim was a man.

Rape is not sex and it is never, ever, sexy.

A Creationist Explains the Male Sex Drive

A creationist explains why men have higher sex drives than women:

I believe God, in order to make certain that the human race would continue on, made sex one of most powerful desires known to mankind. But here’s the problem. If a guy created a baby every time he had sex and he had to take care of each and every baby and it’s mother for the next 20 years of his life and… THERE WAS NO PLEASURE IN THE ACT… how many guys would have sex? None! You think God didn’t know that? Of course he did. So, he had to make the desire for sex so pleasurable that most guys would do just about anything to have sex, baby or no baby. That way the generations would go on and on.

But the problem is, what if he made both men and women with the same desire? What if all men and women had the same intensity sexually as men? What would happen to our society? We’d never get anything done. We’d have so many babies it would overrun the Earths capacity. It would be terrible.

But on the other hand, what if both men and women had the same sexual intensity as most women? What would happen to our society then? We’d die out in one generation.

If the (alleged) difference in men’s and women’s sex drives is just God achieving population control, couldn’t an omniscient, omnipotent God achieve this in other ways? Compared with creating the earth and the sun, tweaking fertility rates should be relatively easy.

Somehow, I find the evolutionary explanation a lot easier to follow…

Albanian Sworn Virgins

Fascinating. An Albanian custom permits women to take an oath of virginity and live their life as men. The gender-swapping custom has its roots in gender inequality: it provided a patriarch for families who were left without one.

The sworn virgin was born of social necessity in an agrarian region plagued by war and death. If the family patriarch died with no male heirs, unmarried women in the family could find themselves alone and powerless. By taking an oath of virginity, women could take on the role of men as head of the family, carry a weapon, own property and move freely.

When traditional Albanian culture accepts sworn virgins as men – complete with men’s responsibilities and duties – it is actually demonstrating a belief that women are just as capable as men. Why, then, do you have such strictly defined gender roles? Is it solely due to religion?

A few other thoughts:

On Transgender vs. Homosexuality

Taking an oath to become a sworn virgin should not, sociologists say, be equated with homosexuality, long taboo in rural Albania.

This line sort of caught me off guard. Next time you write about, say, theatre, why don’t you just throw in a line like “but enjoying theater should not be equated with homosexuality.” Gender identity and sexual orientation are very different things.

On Gender Pronouns
Normally, one should use “he” to refer to people who were born female but identify as male, yet this article uses “she.” Is this ignorance on the part of the reporter to this “rule”, an inability to accept a different custom, or do sworn virgins continue to use the female pronouns? Given the thoroughness with which they are treated as men (including use of the word “uncle”), I’m inclined to believe that they use the male pronouns. So why didn’t the article?

On the Future of Sworn Virgins
As women gain more rights, the incentives to become a sworn virgin become less and less. Some of the remaining sworn virgins, however, appear to encourage the same gender roles that pushed them into becoming men:

“Today women go out half naked to the disco,” said Ms. Rakipi, who wears a military beret. “I was always treated my whole life as a man, always with respect. I can’t clean, I can’t iron, I can’t cook. That is a woman’s work.”

Father-Daughter Purity Balls

Eww. Father-Daughter Purity Ball [tip: get a login / password from bugmenot.com].

The girls, ages early grade school to college, had come with their fathers, stepfathers and future fathers-in-law last Friday night to the ninth annual Father-Daughter Purity Ball. The first two hours of the gala passed like any somewhat awkward night out with parents, the men doing nearly all the talking and the girls struggling to cut their chicken.
…
For the Wilsons and the growing number of people who have come to their balls, premarital sex is seen as inevitably destructive, especially to girls, who they say suffer more because they are more emotional than boys. Fathers, they say, play a crucial role in helping them stay pure.

Between STDs and pregnancy, it’s great if a girl chooses abstinence. However, the Father-Daughter Purity Ball is saying so much more than that. It’s specifically fathers and specifically daughters. If purity is so important, where are the sons? Is virginity not important for boys? If it’s about encouraging virtue, why aren’t the mothers there supporting their daughters?

Instead of encouraging girls to respect and value their bodies, this propagates a distorted world view in which boys are the blameless aggressors, girls are the guardians of purity, and their strong, manly fathers must protect from those silly boys. After all, boys are boys – can they really be expected to keep their d*ck in their pants? Better make that the girl’s responsibility.

“Fathers, our daughters are waiting for us,” Mr. Wilson, 49, told the men. “They are desperately waiting for us in a culture that lures them into the murky waters of exploitation. They need to be rescued by you, their dad.”

Indeed, rather than encouraging a girl to choose abstinence, this promotes the idea of a girl being unable to make her own decisions about her body and needing a man to make the decisions for her. Guess who’s going to make the decisions when she gets a boyfriend?

Furthermore, purity balls like this one can be counterproductive as parents are unlikely to educate their children on safe sex:

Recent studies have suggested that close relationships between fathers and daughters can reduce the risk of early sexual activity among girls and teenage pregnancy. But studies have also shown that most teenagers who say they will remain abstinent, like those at the ball, end up having sex before marriage, and they are far less likely to use condoms than their peers.

Parents: Encourage your children to wait to have sex. That’s great. But encourage all of them equally – boys and girls. And, just in case the kids don’t listen (as kids are known to do) teach them about condoms and safe sex. Preparing for the “what if” scenario is just common sense.

Planned Parenthood of VA Losing State Funding

The Virginia Senate recently voted to cut off state funding for Planned Parenthood because it offers abortions. Ironically, Planned Parenthood probably does more to prevent abortions than almost any other organization in the country. Planned Parenthood offers pregnancy prevention education, contraception, breast exams, STD testing, etc. Why is it that the people who claim to care so much about the death of a fetus aren’t doing anything to stop the fundamental cause? To stop abortions, you need to stop unplanned pregnancies. That’s what Planned Parenthood is doing.

Here’s the thing that gets me: the US claims to have a separation of church and state. However, we still fund faith-based charities and educational institutions. Sure, the government will only fund the non-religious activities, but doesn’t that seem like a somewhat silly distinction? If you give a $1000 to a church’s homeless program, you free up $1000 of the church’s money that they can then use to expand their religious activities.

Despite the separation of church and state, we are essentially funding religious institutions on the grounds that one service they provide is worthwhile. Other services (eg, religion) provided by the religious institution are unconstitutional to fund. We still fund the institution.

Planned Parenthood of Virginia provides many services with goals that Pro-Lifers would support. They offer contraception to prevent abortion, STD testing to save lives, etc. Yet, because law makers simply don’t like one service (which is perfectly legal to fund), they revoke funding for all of these services.

Where’s the logic? Why does a church get funding because of one service even though it’s unconstitutional to fund another, while Planned Parenthood loses funding for all services because law makers morally oppose one (legal and constitutional) service?

Abstinence-Only Driver’s Ed

On Abstinence-Only Driver’s Ed (parody):

ABSTINENCE-ONLY DRIVER’S ED.
BY SUZANNE KLEID

- – - -

Thanks for making it out on a rainy Saturday, kids. Slippery out there, huh? Let’s get started. We’re gonna have some fun today!

Car accidents are a leading cause of death for teenagers. The school board and your elected representatives want to make sure that you and your families are spared from such a tragedy, which is why the money for driver’s ed was eliminated from the budget. Whereas last year I was teaching your older siblings how to shift and brake and three-point-turn during a six-week course, it has since been decreed that I actually need just one afternoon to tell you the only piece of safety information I’m permitted by law to share:

The ONLY 100 percent effective method for avoiding car accidents is to ABSTAIN from driving until marriage.

Read the full thing. It’s good.