Wednesday, March 24, 2010

One Big Mistake, Arizona

Our brilliant legislators voted on Monday to ban teenagers from getting birth control prescriptions or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases without the consent of the parents. Conservative proponents of the bill said it was "in the best interests of the children", and that the government does not need to interfere in the bond between parent and child. Only if there is an emergency will the child be considered for treatment without parental consent.

Are you kidding me? You want to wait until there is an emergency to consider helping people? I would imagine any STD is an emergency that needs taking care of, whether or not the parents consent. Talk about an unintelligent bill. Who thought it was a smart idea to make it a criminal offense to get care without asking your parents?

The government does not have the right, or authority, to ban me from getting the care I need or the birth control I may want. That is a decision to be made by me and me alone. I'm a teenager, I have friends who are under 18 who have sex. I know that they regularly buy condoms and birth control. I also know that NONE of them would like to run those decisions by their parents EVER. You know what's going to happen instead of that? They're just not going to use birth control or get treatment at all.

Unlike what Republicans (and a lot of Democrats) seem to think, there is no way to stop teen sex. It is a natural urge that reaches its peak during the mid teens (hormones and all). To prevent pregnancy and disease, you need to give kids the tools and the education to make smart decisions. This bill is only going to cause problems for these teenagers who have no desire to have their parents consent to their actions. They will not practice safe sex if they have to jump through hoops, and I know this for a fact.

Teen pregnancy is a huge problem, trust me when I say that I'm aware of it, but the answer is not abstinence and the blocking of contraceptives. The answer is limited government and greater sex education. Kids my age should have unregulated access to these things so that they can make the right decision.

The fact that the Republican who sponsored the bill said that it wasn't the government's job to infringe upon the parent-child relationship is a cause for worry. When did it become the government's job to ban these things? You haven't limited the government at all, just moved the intervention around a bit.

And who cares that you think it's moral to ban this? I think it's immoral to deny care to someone because they were afraid to tell their parents. It doesn't matter what you and I think is moral or immoral: it is a non-issue in government, and has no place in it whatsoever.

At least, it's supposed to be that way.

Any form of government intervention is bad. You cannot legislate morality on behalf of the whole.

1 comment:

  1. Who ever honestly thinks that stopping 'kids' from buying condoms is good form of contraseption are honestly (for lack of a better word) RETARDED. That would be like taking the safety off of guns to stop people from shooting each other. The government has no reason to ban this as it actually is for the good of all people since STDs are (correct me if I'm wrong) prevented by condoms. Also we dont need teenager's having children or being effected by something that is preventable. If anything condoms should be available at every high school, hospital, and clinic.