Steely Dan Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 You have got to be kidding me! An assistant principal, enforcing the school’s antidrug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils. Not Marijuana, Crack, Coke, Heroin or Mood Elevators but Advil. She was strip searched for Advil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 In light of the drug etc. I think any strip search without probable cause, a parent present and consenting, should not be allowed on school grounds. Arrest the child and then allow the search. Checking pockets is one thing, strip searching is not appropriate at this age and without consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Sorry libs...you cannot advocate "morning after" pills and abortions without consent, sex ed for very young children and abolishment of parental rights on one hand and then get all indignant about this issue. They are either minors or adults. Not both. You cannot cherry pick the issues with which you decide how they are to be classified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Sorry libs...you cannot advocate "morning after" pills and abortions without consent, sex ed for very young children and abolishment of parental rights on one hand and then get all indignant about this issue. They are either minors or adults. Not both. You cannot cherry pick the issues with which you decide how they are to be classified. Ouch! I bet that stung. This is a great point. Very interesting. Given both arguments, it's going to be fun to see them try to have it both ways, again. I was just talking about selective relativism in Bill's illegals thread. This has the potential to be another example of "all or nothing" = child is an adult when it comes to abortion, followed up by "relative judgment" = child is a child in some cases when it comes to strip searching. In my view, child is ALWAYS a child in all cases...because, um, a child is a child. Idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Sorry libs...you cannot advocate "morning after" pills and abortions without consent, sex ed for very young children and abolishment of parental rights on one hand and then get all indignant about this issue. They are either minors or adults. Not both. You cannot cherry pick the issues with which you decide how they are to be classified. Having grown up in a large family and having many friends with views on both sides of the ideologoy fence, I find your argument specious at best. I, nor anyone I know, has EVER heard of ANY minor receiving an abortion without parental consent. Minors, by law, CAN'T have surgical procedures without parental consent. Nor do I know of ANYONE, liberal, conservative, or otherwise, who advocates that parents be stripped of that obligation. Speaking of cherry picking, are you against ALL contraception or just the "morning after" pill? Or are you, like so many who don't know the difference, confusing it with the RU486 pill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Having grown up in a large family and having many friends with views on both sides of the ideologoy fence, I find your argument specious at best. I, nor anyone I know, has EVER heard of ANY minor receiving an abortion without parental consent. Minors, by law, CAN'T have surgical procedures without parental consent. Nor do I know of ANYONE, liberal, conservative, or otherwise, who advocates that parents be stripped of that obligation. Speaking of cherry picking, are you against ALL contraception or just the "morning after" pill? Or are you, like so many who don't know the difference, confusing it with the RU486 pill? You need to bone up on the social agenda for a lot of progressives out there vis a vis children and sexuality. I do undertstand the Plan B thingy. But if it can be dispensed without a scrip, you mean to tell me PLanned Parenthood wont be using it as a loophole and pushing it onto kids? "Oh...Suzy has a cheerleading competition this weekend....thats an 'emergency!!'." Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Ouch! I bet that stung. This is a great point. Very interesting. Given both arguments, it's going to be fun to see them try to have it both ways, again. I was just talking about selective relativism in Bill's illegals thread. This has the potential to be another example of "all or nothing" = child is an adult when it comes to abortion, followed up by "relative judgment" = child is a child in some cases when it comes to strip searching. In my view, child is ALWAYS a child in all cases...because, um, a child is a child. Idiots. Actually it's a pretty stupid point if you think about it for more than 30 seconds. Would an adult have to submit to a strip search by someone not in law enforcement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Actually it's a pretty stupid point if you think about it for more than 30 seconds. Would an adult have to submit to a strip search by someone not in law enforcement? Im actually against the strip search. This is about rights of children and libs cherry picking what issues they want a child to be qa child and a child to be an adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Another story* brought to you by the zero tolerance zealots. You know who you are....just hang your head in shame. * of course, the only other possible outcome of this case would be to have the Asst. Principal be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life. Love this part: "Do we really want to encourage cases," Professor Arum asked, "where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?" Uh, no we don't. But thanks to all you "progressives", we can't simply fire the incompetent administrator because of 'union rules', and we certainly can't do anything to limit the free reign of trial lawyers! Nice to see two pillars of the left wing standing tall while the building crumbles around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Another story* brought to you by the zero tolerance zealots. You know who you are....just hang your head in shame. * of course, the only other possible outcome of this case would be to have the Asst. Principal be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life. Love this part: Uh, no we don't. But thanks to all you "progressives", we can't simply fire the incompetent administrator because of 'union rules', and we certainly can't do anything to limit the free reign of trial lawyers! Nice to see two pillars of the left wing standing tall while the building crumbles around them. Exactly: We need to encourage lawsuits, because it seems to be the only thing that school administrators understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 You need to bone up on the social agenda for a lot of progressives out there vis a vis children and sexuality. I do undertstand the Plan B thingy. But if it can be dispensed without a scrip, you mean to tell me PLanned Parenthood wont be using it as a loophole and pushing it onto kids? "Oh...Suzy has a cheerleading competition this weekend....thats an 'emergency!!'." Come on. I don't need to bone up on social agendas that don't exist. Planned Parenthood does not advocate the abolition of parents' legal obligations. Never has. Never will. There are some parents out there who, unfortunately, are more than willing to do that on their own. In that case a child needs an advocate appointed by the appropriate agency. Planned parenthood doesn't seek to assume that role either. It's one hell of a stretch to think that the morning-after pill will be as easily obtainable to a minor as a pack of gum, let alone the RU486 abortion pill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Im actually against the strip search. This is about rights of children and libs cherry picking what issues they want a child to be qa child and a child to be an adult. If you're against the strip search, then you are for giving drugs to children. You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 If you're against the strip search, then you are for giving drugs to children. You can't have it both ways. Totally wrong. First, the school could actually have questioned her as to whetehr or not she had pills. Per the article they never asked. Second, if they suspected she had the pills (and was lying after questioning), could they not have contacted her parents, had the parents come to the school and dealt with the issue in this manner? Methinks the "strip search" goes far overboard in what constitutes "reasonable." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 24, 2009 Author Share Posted March 24, 2009 Sorry libs...you cannot advocate "morning after" pills and abortions without consent, sex ed for very young children and abolishment of parental rights on one hand and then get all indignant about this issue. They are either minors or adults. Not both. You cannot cherry pick the issues with which you decide how they are to be classified. This has nothing to do with abortion so keep the apples and oranges debate to yourself. It has to do with a public institution doing a strip search on a minor. The police could not take the kid to the jail and strip search her without parental consent. As for performing abortions for kids who are impregnated through incest that is whole other can of worms. Another story* brought to you by the zero tolerance zealots. You know who you are....just hang your head in shame. * of course, the only other possible outcome of this case would be to have the Asst. Principal be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life. Love this part: Uh, no we don't. But thanks to all you "progressives", we can't simply fire the incompetent administrator because of 'union rules', and we certainly can't do anything to limit the free reign of trial lawyers! Nice to see two pillars of the left wing standing tall while the building crumbles around them. You have no idea what you're talking about do you? The union didn't form because of 'liberal' ideology it formed due to excessive abuses of administrative powers. People don't unionize if everything is great on their jobs. They unionize because they have to in order to fight a corrupt systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 This has nothing to do with abortion so keep the apples and oranges debate to yourself. It has to do with a public institution doing a strip search on a minor. The police could not take the kid to the jail and strip search her without parental consent. As for performing abortions for kids who are impregnated through incest that is whole other can of worms. Youre right..its not about abortion per se. Its about liberal's attempt to steal parental rights. How on one hand they want children to get sex ed in grammar school and be able to have abortions and access to child birth without parental consent, yet on an issue they dont like...all of a suddent "rights of the parents!!!" get thrown out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Youre right..its not about abortion per se. Its about liberal's attempt to steal parental rights. How on one hand they want children to get sex ed in grammar school and be able to have abortions and access to child birth without parental consent, yet on an issue they dont like...all of a suddent "rights of the parents!!!" get thrown out there. Where can I get a copy of this great liberal manifesto that you imagine is out there somewhere? You know nothing of Planned Parenthood it seems, other than what your select media outlets tell you. Talk about agendas. You seem to know less about parents rights/roles relative to procedures conducted on minors. Please, again, where is it stated by anyone that they want minors to have abortions without parental consent? You don't see the value in educating our children about sex education as an embellishment to what good parents should be teaching their kids? You make it sound like parents simply want to let the schools take care of it. You would be wrong. That's my responsibility as a parent and I'm comfortable with schools taking an active role in furthering that education in partnership with my wife and me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Where can I get a copy of this great liberal manifesto that you imagine is out there somewhere? You know nothing of Planned Parenthood it seems, other than what your select media outlets tell you. Talk about agendas. You seem to know less about parents rights/roles relative to procedures conducted on minors. Please, again, where is it stated by anyone that they want minors to have abortions without parental consent? You don't see the value in educating our children about sex education as an embellishment to what good parents should be teaching their kids? You make it sound like parents simply want to let the schools take care of it. You would be wrong. That's my responsibility as a parent and I'm comfortable with schools taking an active role in furthering that education in partnership with my wife and me. Planned Parenthood is against parental consent laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Planned Parenthood is against parental consent laws. For minors? I find that hard to believe. Any link would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Totally wrong. First, the school could actually have questioned her as to whetehr or not she had pills. Per the article they never asked. Second, if they suspected she had the pills (and was lying after questioning), could they not have contacted her parents, had the parents come to the school and dealt with the issue in this manner? Methinks the "strip search" goes far overboard in what constitutes "reasonable." Or they could have called the police. 'Course, when no drugs were found, the school probably would've been sued. Instead, they pushed way too far beyond the boundary of a weasel-worded ruling from over 20 years ago and apply it to their lack of innovation to deal with today's problems. Ability to search a locker/bag somehow becomes ability to strip-search children? Everyone's always got to test the ever-extremest of limits of their power, don't they? Once again, the things of farce become all too real.... time was this sort of thing was confined to a that Adam Sandler "Assistant Principal's Big Day" skit. [speaking through a microphone]"Good morning students and faculty, If I could have your attention please. As you may, or may not know, Principal Cambell will not be here for the rest of the week due to a throat infection. Leaving me, assistant principal Dunbar, as the school's, uhh... lone administrator for the next few days." "Though the policies set forth by Principal Cambell will remain the same, there will be some additional regulations you must also follow." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 For minors? I find that hard to believe. Any link would be appreciated. http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abo...rs20030912.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts