School forces pregnancy test on girls

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Having now glanced at the policy, they do have a section on public display of affection - they are not permitted and show disdain for good taste. This includes kissing, leaning on each other, hugging and sitting in each other's laps.

I concede that the school does regulate morality.

The pregnancy policy opens with



The entire policy is four paragraphs long, and this is the largest of the four paragraphs. It is entirely about conduct - so making sense or not, "being pregnant" appears to be bad behaviour.

Indeed. Evidently getting pregnant is not an "acceptable character trait". Thus, treating someone with such an "unacceptable" trait differently surely must be construed as a penalty, or how would they send the message that being pregnant is immoral?

[Finster]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Could it possibly be anything good?

Not that I can think of, why? It's a stupid policy and the vagueness just compounds the stupidity.

[Rasmus]

The policy is hard to read.

How is a school going to prepare students for life if they aren't able to put a text online in a format other than "scanned images of printout"?

anyway: There definetely is sex-education, between grades 7 and 12.

Interestingly enough, the rules specify that sex-ed should not be religious and that students must not be quizzed about their sex-life, nor be judged.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by Finster

Not that I can think of, why? It's a stupid policy and the vagueness just compounds the stupidity.

That's what I thought. You said the vagueness was "more worrying", but that seems to imply that there might be a better alternative. I don't see one and was wondering if i missed anything.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

Interestingly enough, the rules specify that sex-ed should not be religious and that students must not be quizzed about their sex-life, nor be judged.

I would say their policy declaring pregnancy to be indicative of unacceptable character handles the judgment part.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I would say their policy declaring pregnancy to be indicative of unacceptable character handles the judgment part.

Yes, certainly. But they do have contrary policies for sex-ed. It's an interesting clash. (Possibly explained by legal requirements for the sex-ed curriculum, though.)

I have no doubt that it's a bad policy and that it is likely illegal. I have a few small doubts as to their motives, though.

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It's interesting that you mention drug tests. You see, schools are permitted to require drug tests as a condition of certain activities.

It's interesting that you guys accept that and keep calling yourselves the "land of the free" with a straight face.

Quote:

Whether or not they can do so for pregnancy in this case remains to be determined, and the fact that this is a charter school and not an ordinary public school may be critical. But the fact that they're doing a physiological test does not by itself make this illegal, because courts have already upheld the right of schools to do so.

Then your courts suck at defending privacy rights. Probably too busy defending the NRA... sorry, the 2nd amendment rights.

Anyway, all of this is irrelevant to your claim that the school is not policing morality. They objectively are.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Megalodon

It's interesting that you guys accept that and keep calling yourselves the "land of the free" with a straight face.

I thought we were discussing the law as it is, not as we wish it to be. Don't presume when I make a claim about how things are that this means I wish them to be that way.

Quote:

Then your courts suck at defending privacy rights.

Yes, they do. Because the law sucks at defending privacy rights.

Quote:

Probably too busy defending the NRA... sorry, the 2nd amendment rights.

Uh, no. There are actually very few 2nd amendment cases before the courts. And given that the 2nd amendment is, well, part of our constitution, are you claiming that the courts should not defend those rights?

Quote:

Anyway, all of this is irrelevant to your claim that the school is not policing morality.

So why did you bring it up then? Nevermind, I think I know.

[Silhouette]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

After reading the actual policy, I don't think that's a fair representation of what's going on. First off, if you're pregnant, it's not really private. People can tell, and everyone knows how people get pregnant. If you read the policy, the school calls for a meeting with the parents first. Most cases are probably resolved at that point without any need for testing, since most parents are probably not going to deny that their pregnant child is in fact pregnant. But sometimes parents and children do go into denial. I think the purpose of including the test in the policy is simply to give the school a mechanism to deal with those rare cases of denial. And yes, that happens.

Just because you think you can tell by looking at a girl/woman whether she's pregnant or not does not give you the right to demand the medical proof of it. (I don't mean you personally) There are medical conditions that women can get that mimic the appearance of a pregnancy such as uterine tumors if they get big enough. It's embarrassing enough to look pregnant when you are not with out some presumptuous authoritarian trying to take away your dignity with a totally unnecessary and unwanted test.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Given what else I've seen (see my above post regarding their sex ed policy), it doesn't look like this policy is intended as a punishment at all. Students who are parents don't get sanctioned in any way, but in fact gain an extra privilege. It looks like this policy is intended to prevent disruption to the educational setting for other students. That may be unfair, that may not be the best way to handle the situation, that may be too drastic a measure, but nothing about the school policy looks like it is an attempt to police morality.

There are a lot of issues relating to being human that could potentially be disruptive to a student in a classroom: Tourettes, gas, IBS, PMS, boredom, boners, burping, hiccups, etc. Is it really necessary to humiliate a child or anyone for that matter for their perceived character flaws? To single out one person's pregnancy as being disruptive to everyone else's education is completely unfair and wilfully insensitive to people's feelings. It's punitive to force them to accept home schooling or be expelled and have to go to a different school especially if all they've done is asserted their right to privacy and merely refused to be tested.

[Silhouette]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What about it? It's the only possible way to enforce a policy of having pregnant girls study from home.

And if you're pregnant, it's not actually private.

But why even have a policy that treats pregnant girls like they're lepers? Why go to the trouble of all this testing and segregation if they aren't trying to stigmatize teen pregnancy? How is that not policing morality?

A boy/man's boner does not cease to become a private matter just because other people can see it. A girl's period is still private even if you know she's bleeding.

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

So why did you bring it up then? Nevermind, I think I know.

Well, my friend, you decided to address only one of my posts, trying to engage in one of your usual diversions from the fact that you're defending an untenable position.

You can't blame for digressing... after all, we both know you were wrong.