Perhaps Coburn's goal is to ensure that teenage girls only have sex with adult men, who can legally purchase condoms? (Or is that uncharitable of me?)

Or is he just after the same old goal: ensuring that women cannot escape the divinely mandates dual consequences of sex, which are pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease?

I'll bet he opposes the HPV vaccine, too.

Can't anybody revoke his medical license for pursuing policies that violate the Hipocratic Oath?

Hardcore wingnuts don't really see a drawback to starting girls young in their childbirthing. That it might be a detriment to career-building is a positive in the wingnut view, not a negative.

"This bill does nothing but put parents back in charge of their adolescent daughters," said Coburn

I guess these parents don't have to worry about their sons at all.

Many of the families I know think that sex outside of marriage is harmful to an individual and try to instill these values into their children. Would you deny these parents the right and freedom to raise their children the way they want? Do you think you should be able to tell these parents what is right for them and their children.?

Thomas says "consequences of sex, which are pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease?"

These are the consequences of sex with strangers, outside of marriage, while not using birthcontrol. Not the consequences of "sex".

Tfreridge:
As an eighteen-year-old girl raised in a home where discussion of sex is commonplace, I can say with certainty that this new law would not change my decision on having sex right now, which is that I'm actually NOT having sex right now, though I'm in a great relationship with someone I love. My philosophy, and that of my parents, from what we've observed: if sex isn't treated like a forbidden fruit (my parents have always said that, though they don't encourage it, if I were to want to engage in sex as a teenager and now that I'm "legal" but still on their insurance, that they would make sure I had access to the Pill) then teens might not be so quick to want it. Laws like this, or the lack thereof, do nothing to stop parents from teaching their children anything they want to teach them. In my family, sex is seen as something sacred, as the act of ultimate love between a couple, and I know I'm definitely not mature enough to handle the repercussions of something monumental like that, though I'm not sure if I'll wait until marriage or not. However, in other families and to other people, sex is less than that. Seeing as how I really don't want to see more teen mothers or an increase in abortions, I support easy access to conraception. If the parents are doing their jobs, kids either won't need contraception because they won't be having sex, or teens will have made an informed decision, decided to have sex, and have contraception available so that they won't contract diseases or get pregnant. Chances are, as Ann posts, these kids are going to have sex either way. I'd rather see them protected.

TF, this law doesn't stop the girls from having sex, just from using contraception. Parents have the right not to have Congress help their daughters get pregnant.

I notice it only affects federally funded clinics. This means that teens from wealthy families who can afford private clinics are exempt.

Sexist, classist, and religiously bigoted (forcing teens to give parental notice before doing something Christians frown on, to varying extents, but some other religions don't).

So the wingnuts are attempting to sacrifice teens' health and control over their bodies, and risking increasing the demand for abortions, all in order to give parents some kind of half-assed control over what medications their kids can take.

Kyra says "to sacrifice teens' health and control over their bodies"

I challange your basic assumption that teens have control over their bodies. That is what this is really about. The parents should have a say in what their teenagers do or do not do. If the teen wants control then they need to be emancipated.

"I challange your basic assumption that teens have control over their bodies. That is what this is really about. The parents should have a say in what their teenagers do or do not do."

Awesome. When is the congressional bill preventing boys from masturbating without parental consent coming out? Because I think it's a shame we allow boys to engage in such unproductive, unprocreative and thus harmful sexual activities, and parents should be outraged that they don't have federal law reinforcing their parental control of their sons' bodies.

Also, trefridge, I'm assuming you would never dare cry child abuse if a parent refused a blood transfusion or organ transplant on their child's behalf, if the parent thought it was morally wrong to permit such an action. After all, their child's bodily integrity is subject to the parent's beliefs, right? Or did you mean their bodily integrity is subject to YOUR beliefs?