Gloucester Considers Considers Giving High School Kids Condoms
by Matt Margolis, October 8th, 2008 at 09:32pm
Good lord, what are they thinking in Gloucester?
The School Committee in Gloucester, where a report of a high school pregnancy pact made headlines worldwide earlier this year, is planning to vote tonight on whether to allow contraceptives to be distributed at the high school.
The three proposals expected to be discussed when the board meets at 7 p.m. at City Hall include providing contraceptives to students, providing contraceptives to students only with parental consent, or continuing the current policy under which no contraceptives are provided.
Gloucester was thrust into the spotlight in June after Time magazine reported that several teenage girls had entered into a pact to have babies and raise them together.
While the city’s mayor denied the existence of a pact later that month, the School Committee has since debated the merits of offering contraceptives at the school’s health clinic, which is run by Northeast Health System.
So, a bunch of teenage girls have a pregnancy pact, and now the answer is having taxpayers pay for condoms for kids?
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
6 Comments Add your own
1. crusader88 | October 9th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I hope the measure fails. Gloucester was one of the few bright spots in Massachusetts. At least without the condoms the act wouldn’t be separated from the consequence.
2. Sligeach | October 10th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Paying for condoms is cheaper than paying for these children with children.
“At least without the condoms the act wouldn’t be separated from the consequence.”
That really worked!!!
3. SP | October 10th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Pay for the condoms now or for the child’s housing, food and clothing for the next 18 years. You decide. Not giving kids access to condoms is irresponsible - plain and simple.
4. crusader88 | October 12th, 2008 at 1:50 am
At least without the condoms the act wouldn’t be separated from the consequence.
As I said, they now have children. The point wasn’t that they would avoid pregnancy, but that they would have the natural consequence of sex, children.
If I must choose between the two, better for the state to pay for the children. The West is committing suicide with its low birth rates. Better to have new kids from our native population than by immigration. And besides, if they hadn’t had kids, that would not be “irresponsible”. Them having kids does not make them any more responsible- premarital sex is always irresponsible, and hence we aren’t any better a society if we merely eliminate the effects of fornication through contraception. In fact, it makes us worse, because it shows that the state condones their conduct, and promotes something which is intrinsically evil.
Honestly, the babies themselves are a plus in a bad situation. Are your tax dollars the only things you care about?
5. Thomas Shawn | October 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
This will just condone sexual behavior at the age but hopefully most of the kids are smarter than this.
More pseudo parenting from left wing wackos.
6. TJARHEAD | October 27th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I believe one of the babies born to this fine group of young ladies has passed away due to”sids”., Bless the poor thing. also,the 24-yr old homeless man was coerced into putting his name on this child’s birth certificate—only to find out that the baby was of a different race than the mother OR the duped father-to-be!! Poetic justice,I say.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed