the condom access program
 

now between the ages of 12 (Twelve) and 19 in Calif you can now get FREE condoms. Is this good or Does this help corrupt minors? Who should be making decisions for you child, you or the state? Can a 12 yr old decide? Federally funded program. 12 yr olds with condoms and 15 yr olds with "morning after pill" Are we heading in right direction with our children?
Is a 12 yr old a woman or a child? 12 yr olds can't drive but yet are encouraged to stock up on condoms. Is this sending a signal to children that sex is good at this young age. Is 12 too young or should it be 15 or 18? Just throwing out some Thought provoking decisions being made for our children. Again the morals in our country. Are we going down the right road?

seems to me that the new plan b pill policy compliments the condom access policy and provides a back-up to the possibility of condom failure! am not sure - but i don't think cali is the only state with such a policy.

this country lost most of its morals years ago, in mho. and look at the folks who are legislating such behavior - the folks who did not have that protection when they were kids - they were the kids who were afraid of what their parents would say about an unplanned pregnancy and that they might hafta get married because of it! does that remind you of anyone?

Romeo was 15-16 and Juliet 13. And that was at a time in history when menarche likely occurred in mid-adolescence. The idea of early teens having sex is not new and was likely the norm through much of human history. Either we accept the consequences with no effort to ameliorate the STD's and pregnancies because we wish it weren't so or you face the truth that sexual activity is going on with or without your consent and attempt to lessen the consequences. There is overwhelming data that giving teens the knowledge of how to prevent disease and pregnancy does NOT increase the likelihood of their becoming sexually active. At the same time evidence shows that education and access does reduce, although not as much as I might wish, the likelihood of STD's and pregnancies.

You are not throwing out the correct questions. Here is a more accurate one: Your 13 year old has decided to have sex. Do you wish it were easy for her to prevent disease and pregnancy knowing that those risks are not going to stop her from having sex?

I of course believe in prevention just like everyone else. However, aren't we sending children the wrong messages "if the candy is FREE"?? I believe we should live in a society where we allow kids to be kids and not ENCOURAGE them to have sex by giving out Free condoms or pills. I don't envy the parents today but just hope they get involved in the kids schools and know what is really going on.

Excellent post.

Nothing I can add, that you haven't already stated very clearly. :thumbup:

.

Comparing free condoms to free candy is not a very apt comparison. For as long as I can remember there have been vending machines in restrooms where you could put in coins and get condoms, whether you were 21 or 12.
Same as candy. They weren't free but they were available

:bowdown::agree:

I'll try to be clearer. Giving out condoms and teaching their proper use does NOT encourage them to have sex. There are facts available in well done studies to substantiate that statement. I invite you to read the studies.\


Link

Objectives. This study assessed relationships between condom availability programs accompanied by community discussion and involvement and adolescent sexual practices.
Methods. Sexual practice and condom use differences were assessed in a representative sample of 4166 adolescents enrolled in high schools with and without condom availability programs.
Results. Adolescents in schools where condoms were available were more likely to receive condom use instruction and less likely to report lifetime or recent sexual intercourse. Sexually active adolescents in those schools were twice as likely to use condoms, but less likely to use other contraceptive methods, during their most recent sexual encounter.

Conclusions. The strategy of making condoms available, an indication of socioenvironmental support for condom use, may improve HIV prevention practices.



link

OBJECTIVES. Opponents of condom availability programs argue that the promotion and distribution of condoms increases adolescent sexual activity. This assertion was tested empirically with data from the evaluation of a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention program for Latino adolescents. METHODS. The onset of sexual activity, changes in the frequency of sex, and changes in the proportion of respondents with multiple partners were compared for intervention and comparison groups. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess the effect of the intervention on these outcomes after adjustment for baseline differences between the intervention and comparison groups. RESULTS. Male respondents in the intervention city were less likely than those in the comparison city to initiate first sexual activity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08). Female respondents in the intervention city were less likely to have multiple partners (OR = 0.06). The program promoting and distributing condoms had no effect on the onset of sexual activity for females, the chances of multiple partners for males, or the frequency of sex for either males or females. CONCLUSIONS. An HIV prevention program that included the promotion and distribution of condoms did not increase sexual activity among the adolescents in this study.


Link

Because most youth are enrolled in school for many years before they initiate sex and when they initiate sex, schools have the potential for reducing adolescent sexual risk‐taking. This paper reviews studies which examine the impact upon sexual risk‐taking of school involvement, school characteristics, specific programs in school that do not address sexual behavior, and specific programs that do address sexual risk‐taking. Multiple studies support several conclusions. First, involvement in and attachment to school and plans to attend higher education are all related to less sexual risk‐taking and lower pregnancy rates. Second, students in schools with manifestations of poverty and disorganization are more likely to become pregnant. Third, some school programs specifically designed to increase attachment to school or reduce school dropout effectively delayed sex or reduced pregnancy rate, even when they may not address sexuality. Fourth, sex and HIV education programs do not increase sexual behavior, and some programs decrease sexual activity and increase condom or contraceptive use. Fifth, school‐based clinics and school condom‐availability programs do not increase sexual activity, and either may or may not increase condom or contraceptive use. Other studies reveal that there is very broad support for comprehensive sex‐and HIV‐education programs, and accordingly, most youth receive some amount of sex or HIV education. However, important topics are not covered in many schools.


More references available

A great reference post BLUEASH. Facts are so positive and drive out fear and supersition.

We are talking about 12 year old CHILDREN here NOT even teenagers.

Agreed!



One would hope so.

Alas, that often isn't the case.


.

Thirteen year old females are girls, not women. Making Plan B available will make it harder for good girls to resists demands for sex from teenage boys. Using birth control does not stop STDs. Using CONDMs is not perfect. Consumer Reports tested them and found defects, holes, etc. The ones PP put out were the worst.

Remember in earlier times, life expectancy was much lower, 30 years at time of Romeo and Juliet, so early sex was normal.

When SS was started, average life expectancy was 65.

my old fashioned, like it the way it was before "EVERYTHING" became OK and before don't dare hurt any class or group's feelings and before permissiveness trumped discipline........

they are girls....not women....they are kids......

Once again we are catering to the few and adversly affecting the many in the process.

The majority loses another one......AGAIN:mad::censored:

btk

Your right, but just think how good it makes some folks feel that IT IS NOT LIKE THE GOOD OLE DAYS, i.e. Minorities, gays, lesbians, short people, fat people, mentaly and phsycaly handicapped, athiests, nerds, and on and on. I believe in an all inclusive world. Its time for the good ole boys and good ole days to come into the now and stop allowing a group that must fit into a narrow box to make the laws and dicision for the entire population. If am a good ole white boy from a farm in Iowa and would be at the top of the heap if everything was like it used to be, but I know in my heart that the way it used to be was not right, not fair, not spiritual, not loving, not understanding.

GRAND SLAM!!!! :bigbow:



.