These numbers show that the majority of Americans are reasonable, and do want young people to have access to birth control. So, considering that the U.S. population seems to be fairly reasonable, how is it that our politicians keep getting cowed by the crazies who only want to punish women (especially poor women) for sex?

The UK, for example, also has people who argue against the HPV vaccination, but they don't listen to them.

Just a question that I don't have an answer for:

Is there a point, at least in regards to age, that providing birth control almost promotes sex.

I have no problem giving bc to high school kids. And a couple of kids in my junior high got pregnant, but they were always older kids who had been held back. It never would have occured to me to try to have sex in junior high. I understand that this has to do with my age and how I was brought up, but it does make me wonder. Does providing bc to younger kids give them the idea that they can actually have sex? I don't want to punish anyone, and I don't think sex is bad. I just wonder if there is a point where it goes from helping people to facilitating/promoting sex with people who are probably too young to really handle it.

That's a great question, bear. I don't think we should provide birth control to middle school students, but then, some middle school students are having sex. So I'm conflicted because we can't stop them from having sex (and I wouldn't want anyone to try), but we can provide them the knowledge and tools to make it safer. But where's the line?

Despite everything pop culture tells us, sex is not something to be taken lightly, at least as an adolescent. There's so much crap going on in the lives and minds of middle schoolers; sex doesn't help. I don't think we should "promote" sex that that young because I honestly believe that most middle schoolers and hell, many high schoolers, are not mature enough to handle sex, or are having sex for reasons like peer pressure. I'm quite torn on this issue. What does everyone else think?

My opinion is that in middle school, birth control should be available-- via the nurse or something. It should be accessible, but the nurse should sit down people who come in the first time to get it and talk to them about sex, why waiting might be a better idea, and about talking to their doctor. Then give them the BC.

In high school, of course, it should be accessible without a talk or anything.

On issues of abortion/contraception and their availability, it's usually pretty easy for me to understand opposing viewpoints, no matter how completely and fundamentally I may disagree with them. They're generally pretty straightforward.

But I've never been able to figure out the rationale behind making abortion or contraception least available to the youngest kids. I understand the fears about promoting sexual activity and all that, but -- seriously? It's in this age group that the question becomes blurred about whether nudging someone into an unwanted pregnancy is too big a price to pay? I swear to God, I'd rather have two, three, five, twenty more thirteen-year-olds having consensual and protected sex than force one of them unwillingly to carry a baby to term, let alone keep it, who otherwise might have had a comparatively normal adolescence.

That's huge to me -- the idea of a girl that young, or younger, being pushed into having a baby, just because we're afraid or the consequences of having the general community of kids that age be knowledgable about the breadth of options available to them. It's just such a huge burden to place on somebody who really is far too young to be punished for ignorance of the consequences, or poor planning, or just bad luck. It's bad for her, it's bad for the baby, and, actually, it's bad for the community. And it seems so fundamentally unfair.

I think the main worry here is that 12- and 13-year-olds often have no reason to consent to sex; hell, a good chunk of them haven't even hit puberty yet. So the first question in my mind when I hear about it is this: Do they really want sex, or are they being exploited?

Of course, this doesn't mean they shouldn't be offered birth control - but I think school nurses need to be trained to identify sexual abuse, because you're going to see a lot more of it in sexually-active middle school girls than in their high school counterparts.

I am as confused as Bear. I feel that middle schoolers are in no way ready for bc information. It will encourage them to have sex. I don't buy the they-are-going-to-do-it-anyway argument. It would be nice if parents could be frank with their kids about sex while also telling them that they are too immature to do it. Telling your very young child that they shouldn't have sex is not making sex out to be something bad. Rather it is telling the child that he or she should wait. What is wrong with that??

I feel that middle schoolers are in every way ready for bc information. It will not encourage them to have sex. I don't buy the they-are-going-to-get-ideas-and-then-do-it argument. It would be nice if parents could be frank with their kids about sex while also telling them that they are too immature to do it but also recognizing reality. Telling your very young children (if you consider puberty "very young") that they shouldn't have sex is not making sex out to be something bad necessarily, depending on the actual situation. Rather it is telling them moral should and should nots without giving them actual information.

When I was in middle school a little over ten years ago, there were already students having (largely unprotected) sex. Those students who were not having sex were talking about it or at least thinking about it. Believe me, they've already got the ideas and the opportunities for sex. They need the information and the opportunities to protect their health and their future.

The issue for me is whether the parents know about it. I don't know that there is necessarily a "too young" to be on birth control - basically, if you can get a period, you should have the option - but the parents really should know about it as long as they are primarily responsible for the child's health care. Since we have an established legal age of adulthood, it makes sense to me to use 18 as a guideline...unless the child goes through the necessary emancipation procedures, etc.

To me it's more of a medical issue. It's SO important that any doctor treating a child (or anyone, for that matter) know about every medication that the patient is taking, so that drug interaction can be avoided and the doctor is working off a complete and accurate picture of their overall health.

Solution: BC for some, tiny American flags for others.

Hehe, sorry, I just got that in my head from the Simpsons.

On a more serious note, I am definitely in favor of dispensing BC to middleschoolers. We had school sex ed classes when I was 11, so why not? I'm not saying that these kids should be having sex, but let's face it: some of them do in fact have sex. Is it better to wait until someone gets pregnant before they have options?

The only real prevention to these kids having sex (clearly when they're too young to understand it fully) is having good role models and access to good information.

My own parents had the belief that if they didn't talk about sex, it wouldn't exist. What did that result in? I just had sex behind their backs. Ignoring this problem is not going to make it go away.

Seeing as I went through physical puberty at 9 years old, I think middle schoolers should definitely have it available. They should be allowed to go to their nurse and get it, and without parental consent, because what kid that age is going to admit that they fool around in the back of the school bus? Because believe me, when I was in middle school, there were couples doing that. And giving head at school dances, as shocking as that sounds. While I didn't have the urge to participate in anything sexual related until I was 19, that doesn't mean that other people I grew up with felt the same. Exploitation or not, if pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases can happen, then prevention should be available, regardless of age. A 13-year old doesn't deserve herpes and/or a baby just because other people feel like she or he is too young to be given the knowledge to prevent it. Responsibility should be taught to BOTH sexes if intimacy is happening, no matter what someone else's morals are, because they are going to do it anyway.

My parents made sure to tell me exactly how to handle myself in case of a fire in our apartment. I did not somehow get the idea that that made it a good idea to start a fire.

My mother taught me, when I was in junior high, about her experiences with drugs. I did not start going out and doing drugs--indeed, to this day she has had far more of such experiences than I have.

My parents told me at a very young age (and I mean young--age 2, when I first asked them where I came from) about sex. Some years later, they told me about birth control. And I didn't start having sex until a long time after high school.

Cause and effect just doesn't work that way.

Mary B: heh heh heh...good one! :D

I think, if you can get pregnant, you should have access to birth control. It should be cheap and over-the-counter and readily available to whomever needs it. This country is ridiculous.

Nerdalert, I totally agree. We shouldn't have to explain ourselves for it, either.

@YoungTailsandEars...

I strongly disagree that parents should know about/consent to prescriptions of any kind for children under 18.

Teens are entitled to medical confidentiality for very good reason. In some families, a 13-year-old could tell her mom that she got an STD and is being treated for it. However, in other familes, that child would be beaten or worse.

So long as doctors recognize that teens can get prescriptions without their parents knowing and the doctors have private conversations with the teens - there is no danger of prescribing something that would interact and the doctor would have a full understanding of the child's health.

If it's not done this way, kids won't tell their parents, they won't tell doctors, and they won't get treatment for very serious diseases (and then will probably spread those diseases to other teens).

If a kid is old enough to decide to have sex, the kid is old enough to see a nurse or a doctor and discuss contraception and/or STDs and treatment.

BTW, I don't believe that any of these programs advocate giving out pills with no other information. Teen (and pre-teen) healthcare providers do care about the emotional well-being of their patients and will not be prevented from counseling kids about all of the consequences of sexual activity.

I understand that a parent would want to know, but that desire doesn't outweigh the importance of guaranteeing girls' access to confidential medical care, IMO.

I never said I wanted to prevent information to get to middle school kids. I just questioned whether it was wise to give bc out to kids of that age. I'm not against the information. Just seeking thoughts on a question I don't have an answer for.