Single-Sex School...Just Say No!

Carrie, I enjoyed your post on single-sex schools. Perhaps the most important point (and one you touch on) is the fact that students in single-sex schools will not have the opportunity to interact with children of another gender at an early age. The individuals I have met in the past who have come from boys’ schools (individuals whose parents eventually decided to move them over to traditional public schooling) had little idea with how to treat girls. They fluctuated between being afraid of women and acting rather chauvinist (to put it lightly). In talking with friends at girls’ schools, the lack of boys simply provided a ripe breeding ground for near man-worship. In short, “deprivation” (though that’s a bit dramatic) leads to obsession, so I’m going to have to disagree with you on the “less distractions” bit. The lack of interaction also leaves both sexes with little understanding of how to deal with attraction and removes a forum (school) in which boys and girls can come to view each other as individuals, not some vague object of their desires. Personally, I think same-sex schools would make girls more vulnerable to teen pregnancy.

In my mind (and in the mind of parentingteens.about.com), the best way to deal with teen pregnancy is in the home, by encouraging interests outside of boys (sports, art, drama, etc.), teaching your children about contraception, convincing them of their own self-worth, providing them someone with whom to talk to about their problems, and imposing discipline when necessary. It sounds a bit old-fashioned and naïve, but it worked well enough for my family. 

Childhood Vaccinations

This is one of those times when Nike’s “just do it” mantra fits quite well.

Most individuals who oppose childhood vaccination do so for religious reasons*. I’m a big believer in the Constitution’s freedom of religion promise. And I fully support individuals engaging in their respective religious practices. However, my support lasts only so long as those practices don’t infringe on the rights of others. The way I see it, in the case of vaccination, children easily fall into that “others” category. As for infringing on rights, disease certainly does a number the Declaration of Independence’s offer of “life” and the “pursuit of happiness.”

Denying children access to life-saving vaccination on the basis of religion is creating small, vulnerable populations particularly susceptible to deadly and disabling diseases. These are populations that gather on a regular basis (churches, synagogues, etc.) to share germs collected over the previous week. Ever seen a cold break out in a pre-school? It’s like that, except rather than a sore throat, your child gets mumps and he’s gambling with permanent deafness or perhaps meningitis and at the very best he risks brain and behavioral changes, movement problems, organ failure and a lifetime of severe headaches. This, my friends, is when Sunday school classes get deadly.

So how does this apply to Texas? Currently Texas children must be vaccinated against Polio, Dipthereia/Tetanus/Pertussis, Measles, Rubella, Mumps, Hepatitis B, Varicella (Chicken Pox), and Hepatitis A before attending public school (including pre-school). That is, unless their parents want them to be exempt. All they have to do is request forms from the health department (there’s an online submission form) and send them in. (The Lone Star College System has a pretty good outline of the typical steps to obtain a ‘conscientious objection’ to vaccination).

While I don’t think Texas (vaccination policy is decided at the state level) should step in and strong arm parents into getting their kids vaccinated, I DO think Texas needs to do a better job getting out the truth about the relative risks vs. benefits of vaccinating vs. not. Why should Texas do this? Daily Finance discusses the state savings resulting from vaccinations (“Every $1 spent on the childhood series of seven vaccines…saves $16.50 of medical spending later”). Secondly, it’s the right thing to do. I think at this point, many parents are operating based on the false impression that vaccines cause autism (this was a scam courtesy of Dr. Andrew Wakefield…25 later studies found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism) (Daily Finance).

In addition, I think religious organizations need to consider the relative risk to their parishioners. From a wholly pragmatic perspective, endangering the lives of parishioners doesn’t bode well for the spread of religion (both from a media standpoint as well as a ‘less parishioners’ standpoint). I believe children should be exempt from religious practices that are dangerous to their health until they have the mental wherewithal to decide whether to take up the religious customs in full.

*-To be clear, I am not opposed to individuals not receiving vaccinations on the basis of health concerns. I agree with forgoing vaccination if a physician believes that it will pose a greater risk to the child than the risk of the disease against which the child is being vaccinated. 

Texas’ New Sonogram Law

Chloe, I really enjoyed reading your post and I agree with many of your arguments, especially the idea that abortion choice should be a matter of personal conviction, not governmental coercion.

You described the new sonogram requirement as “empowering.” I know this was a sarcastic jab at the claims of the pro-lifers out there, but I’m quite confused about their stance. Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, declared the ruling to be a “huge victory for women in Texas” (The Daily Texan). What, exactly, did women win? As you mentioned, I only see a loss of rights here.

I also like that you mentioned the teenage pregnancy cycle and Alec’s comment about how taxing pregnancy can be on the mother (not to mention on young mothers still in the throes of hormonal changes and developing their own identities). I’d also like to bring up the quality of life of the children of teenage mothers. While it usually seems to be taken for granted that life is better than no life, many of the children born to teenage mothers do not live easy lives. According to Adoption Education, “80% of young teenage moms end up in poverty and on welfare.” Just because a baby is born does not mean that it will have a wonderful life. “A study in Illinois found that children of teenage mothers are twice as likely to be abused and neglected than are children of 20 or 21 year old mothers” (Adoption Education).  I’m not saying that the children of poor, young mothers should automatically be denied life, but I personally would have trouble bringing a child into the world if I knew I couldn’t emotionally or financially provide for it. 

However, I wasn’t quite clear on your equating abortion to the death penalty. Abortion entails the loss of life before the fetus (or “baby”) has developed into a fully-formed individual whereas the death penalty is delivered as punishment for the choices a fully-formed individual has made. As Alec mentioned, the fetus is, to a large extent, innocent while death penalty victims are considered quite the opposite (although Texas may not always get it right).  

There was one point you didn’t touch on that I found particularly motivating. With these new restrictions and others (such as the overtly religious pre-abortion counseling in South Dakota), I believe fewer physicians will become abortion providers. And while this is undoubtedly a win for the pro-lifers, I think the quality of care for abortion services will suffer and the “huge victory” Ms. Northup declared will be overshadowed by poorer services available to women. The United States is home to a very capitalistic brand of medicine, where doctors compete for services and accordingly improve their services to attract more patients. This results in medical innovation and high quality standards. If you discourage physicians to practice in a particular field, quality attained through competition will suffer. In short, you will be “forcing pregnant women to receive medical treatment from less-skilled providers,” which U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks says “certainly seems to be at odds with ‘protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women,’ one of the Act’s stated purposes” (Houston Chronicle). I wholeheartedly agree.