Tell me, all your life, haven't you thought that middle school students are too young to have sex? Haven't you always thought that parents should at least know about, and have some say in, what their children are doing? If you have thought this way, and you probably have if you're not from San Francisco, how could you support something that's the very opposite of your beliefs?
A supporter, Richard Verrier, said it's not enough to depend on parents to protect their children because there may be students who can't discuss things with their parents.
Why would you make a law that's very bad for most people, just to protect a small number of students for whom lack of this law might be a problem? Just who are we helping by allowing 12-year-olds to get birth control pills without their parents' explicit permission?
I just don't understand these laws. I don't understand how this type of law helps us as a society. I don't understand how anyone who's a parent could possibly think that such laws are a good idea. I don't see how a thinking adult could support such a law.
And here's how they're going to trick people into falling for this scam:
Students treated at the centers must first get written parental permission, but under state law such treatment is confidential, and students decide for themselves whether to tell their parents about the services they receive.
Of course if my child has a headache, I want the school nurse (if they even have one) to give him an aspirin. Then something like this occurs. It's inevitable.
I'm not a big fan of the Republicans' social agenda, but if this is what they're talking about regarding family values, then sign me up.