Parental Consent for Abortion

The US has the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world. As you can see in the charts, the differences are stark. Yes, we do need more education and yes we do need more parental guidance. But if the teen decides to get an abortion, should she need parental consent as she is underage? Such consent is mandatory in 24 US. Most of the statutes apply to girls younger than 18 and provide for a court bypass procedure in case the girl is not able to involve her parents. Also most statutes include exceptions for medical emergencies.

On the one hand, supporters of the “required consent” camp, say that abortion is a form of medical procedure and as such parental consent should be required. The same way that parental consent is required for ear piercing, tattoos and appendectomies. Moreover, parents have the right to know what’s going on with their children’s lives. And others add that there is always the possibility that when parents find out, may offer support and long term help and thus avert the abortion.

Not so, the opponents of the measure assert. Parental consent is not legally required to have a baby. Why should it be different with the decision not to have one? And although parents may have the right to know what’s going on with their kids’ lives, what happens when the girl chooses abortion and the parents oppose it? Whose will should prevail? And don’t we make things worse –they ask- when we postpone the abortion by requiring an extra legal process to take place?

For the requirements in every state, you may go here You will see that some states have chosen a mid-solution. They require “parent notification.” If you are under 18, you have to tell your parents but you don’t need their consent.

What are your thoughts on the parental consent requirement?

Unwanted Fatherhood

Yes, abortion is a controversial matter but mostly because the sides fight over the rights of the fetus. There is a minority however that tries to campaign for the rights of the father. Why, they ask, the woman may have a say over the future of her pregnancy and a man may not? So far, court decisions have sided against paternal involvement in the decision process. In 1978, in the UK, William Paton attempted to stop his separated wife from having an abortion but the judge ruled against him. He took the case to the European Court of Human Rights which also ruled in favor of the wife. Similarly, in 1989, Jean-Guy Tremblay in Canada, tried to stop his girlfriend from having an abortion. The Supreme Court of the country ruled that there was no precedent for a man’s right to protect a potential progeny. And so on and so on.


Here comes a 25-year old programmer from Michigan, who says that if men are not allowed to protect a potential progeny, they should not have to pay child support either if the pregnancy occurred against the men’s will. The young programmer says that his former girlfriend assured him she could have no children and knew he did not want any. When she got pregnant, he offered to pay for the abortion or give up the baby for adoption. The girlfriend instead sued him for a $500 per month child support payment. And as you can guess, she won.

Think about it. Women have all the rights not to become parents. They may choose to abort, or give up the baby for adoption, or simply leave the baby at a hospital. The law is explicit that women are entitled to avoid unwanted parenthood. Why aren’t men protected similarly? Indeed the National Center for Men has drafted a proposition called “Roe v. Wade for men” which gives men the right, when faced with unwanted parenthood, to resort to a “financial abortion”. If the pregnancy occurred against their will, and if it is early in pregnancy, then, they would like to have the right to be released from any future financial responsibilities. "When it comes to reproduction in America today, women have rights and men merely have responsibilities" (Glenn Sacks, 2008, quoted here.)


It’s only fair the National Center for Men says.

What do you say? (Don’t debate the abortion issue please. The question focuses on men’s rights.)

Individual vs. the group

Although close to 14% of school districts have reported having a uniforms policy, the idea has been hotly debated. On the one hand, supporters claim that it bridges some differences between poor and more affluent students. Also they point to the lack of worrying over what to wear, something that promotes efficiency and boosts a unitary school spirit. School administrators finally spend less time on enforcing a dress code. On the other hand, opponents point to the cost of purchasing a uniform which may impose an extra burden on parents (although a donation program is alleviating the burden).But most importantly they lament over the loss of individualism and the reign of group mentality.

Not so, protest the supporters. They point to other countries, like Japan, where the majority of schools have enforced a uniform policy and the debate is almost non-existent. They also refer to the case of the snowboarder Kazuhiro Kokubo in the Vancouver Winter Olympics. Play the video and look at the way the young athlete on the left wears his clothes. In the end of the video he is apologizing as his appearance caused uproar back in Japan. The Ski Association of Japan stated that “It is not the way the Japanese delegation should dress themselves while taxpayers' money is spent on them" and debated whether to kick Kokubo out of the Games altogether. You see, the idea that one should be punished for offending the group is not difficult to swallow. The Japanese Olympic Committee however decided to only ban him from participating in the opening ceremonies and allow him to compete later in his event.

Consequently, the supporters assert, adherence to group rules becomes more important if taxpayers are paying for it. Therefore, school uniforms, are fair game.

How do you feel about it? Would you go along or oppose it?

Vote on the 2011 federal budget

As the debate for universal health coverage inflamed moods and while half truths were thrown back and forth from all sides, one argument that struck me as peculiar was “I am not paying for your health care.” It did take me aback for a moment because it came from a seventy-year old man. Whose health care the tax payer is financing to a serious extent at least. Let us not forget that 80% of our budget in 2008 was financed by the tax payer and the rest by borrowing. Which will have to be paid back by the future tax payers. Everything is traced back to our pockets in other words.

Allocation of tax money has been hottly debated across countries. In some, the electorate acts on a collective sentiment of shared responsibilities and rights. In others, the electorate has chosen a more individualistic approach. For example, visitors to northern European countries are struck by the extent of social benefits. And the level of taxation of course. They even have universal child care as decades ago the Swedish government realized that if it were to capitalize fully on the female part of their labor market, they had better offer a sound solution to the babysitting problem. (The centers BTW open at 6:30, stay open for 12 hours and accept children older than one year of age.) Their social benefits include secure pensions, universal everything… decent housing for the elderly and significant unemployment benefits.How much tax do they pay? Higher than ours. For a family with one wage-earner and two children, only Iceland and Ireland have a lower income tax burden than the U.S, whereas Sweden, Turkey, France and Poland impose the greatest tax burdens on families. It is my understanding however that property tax has not been co assessed so the US tax rates are probably higher.

 But before you jump condemning those darn “socialist” countries, remember one basic thing that many politicians forget when they blast at them. The electorate in these countries voted in such a system. Blasting their system is equal to insulting millions of Europeans and Canadians for thinking differently. And as we learned, ethnocentrism usually spreads blindness…

So, we have two different worlds, two different systems. The electorate in the US is reluctant towards a stronger safety net and they still debate the use of their tax dollars. However, much of the debating is missing focus since we lack concrete proposals on where to economize from. Fighting fraud and waste is good rhetoric but it won’t get you far since no bureaucratic system is immune to these ills. Suggesting certain cuts from a certain sector and reallocating them to another (even the one that pays back our debt) seems far more constructive. So here is the proposed budget for 2011.

How would you re-split the pie? And why? To have again a total picture please vote on the right which sector you think should face most of the cuts. Then vote again which sector the saved monies should go to.

Who knows? Maybe your representatives are reading us! :)

Medical Marijuana

Certain states have legalized the medical use of marijuana while some others are expected to pass similar measures. As arguments for or against are flying to and fro, today, in Oakland, a new 15,000 s.f. warehouse called iGrow opens up to sell all you will need for medicinal marijuana cultivation. The managers have hired a doctor on site to provide you with the necessary cannabis card and whatever you need to grow the stuff (except for the seeds of course). On site technicians will happily demonstrate how you can set up a “farm house” in your home, how to proceed with the hydroponic cultivation, advise on the nutrients you will need and assist with weekly maintenance. The cost may rise to $1000 for an eight-plant system, and if you use half of the harvest you may sell the rest to a dispensary for a maximum of $12,000. Today’s opening will attract national media attention while three City Council members are expected to attend along with the leaders of the cannabis industry in the region.


Oakland residents voted last summer to regulate and tax “cannabis businesses” and have allowed the operation of four licensed dispensaries. That was hardly a “revolutionary act” within the realm of world history. Marijuana’s legitimate use goes back thousands of years. In 2737 BC the Chinese Emperor Shen Neng prescribed the plant for treating gout, rheumatism and poor memory. Various Hindu sects used it a stress-relief medication. Ancient physicians in Asia, Middle East and Africa distributed it for all sorts of ailments. In late 18th century America marijuana was prescribed for incontinence and sexually transmitted diseases. But in the early 20th century, with 2-5% of the American population addicted to morphine contained in medications like “The People's Healing Liniment for Man or Beast" the Food and Drug Administration was created to regulate marijuana use through the medical establishment. What we call today “medical use” in other words.

In 1914, the Harrison Act imposed a heavy tax on non-medical uses of the drug and punished anyone who obtained it without paying the tax. In 1937 the Marijuana Tax Act criminalized non-medical use while the 1950 Boggs Act and Narcotics Control Act established mandatory sentences for marijuana possessors and distributors. As times relaxed, in 1996 California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana and since then a number of states adopted similar measures. The arguments from both sides are serious. Critics point to the underground marijuana industry (in LA alone it is estimated that 1000 illegal shops are in operation), while supporters point to the plant’s qualities as a safe pain reliever, especially in severe illnesses such as multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS. Critics counter-attack by disputing the medical benefits when they are contrasted with possible health risks and consider the drug as “gate opener” to more potent narcotics. Supporters point to the lack of strong data that could support the latter argument and point to the prison population (the largest in the world), a quarter of which is imprisoned for drug-related crimes (In 2000 for example half of the convictions for possession led to a prison or jail term, while two-thirds of the trafficking convictions did).

Fast forward and back to Oakland. Watch the video Marijuana Superstore Opens. Would you support a similar measure for Florida? Post your opinion and then take a poll on the right so we can have an overall reflection of the students' attitude.

PACS

More and more people are becoming skeptical of the institution of marriage. The high divorce rates on the one hand, (55% in Sweden, 45% in the US, 38% in France), increasing numbers of single parenthood on the other (in 2007, in the US 40% of babies were born to single moms), financial stress that complicates the rearing of children, infidelity becoming  more common (20% of men and 15% of women under 35 reported cheating), the no-fault divorce making the process easy and cheap, all have contributed to a fear of tying the knot, here, in the UK, and in Korea.

Well, is there an alternative besides cohabitation? The answer is coming from France in a package called PACKS (Pacte civil de solidarité).  As you have probably guessed, it is a civil union. The law was enacted to allow gay couples have some of the benefits of a marriage but it soon attracted the heterosexual population as well. The contents of the legislation allow the two partners to become contractants and organize their common life. They do it by registering a common declaration to the court in which they state their address in France or abroad. The contractants agree to mutual help while they are jointly responsible for debts occurred because of household expenses. They are eligible for tax benefits after three years while the tenant’s lease may transfer to the other partner if one leaves or dies. Also health benefits are transferable to the partner.

How do you dissolve it? Simply by filing  a common statement, or after a three month delay at the request of one partner. No lawyers involved, no legal fees, no lengthy processes.

How popular is it? The number has grown from 6,000 in 1999, to 140,000 in 2008. It is a half solution to marriage, it offers some of the benefits and removes the costs of a long term commitment.

 Do you see it coming to the US?

Dropping out

Kids all over the country are entering high schools in greater numbers than ever. The free public secondary education has encouraged everyone to attend, study, and shift towards a more prosperous future. Fifteen year olds with radiating faces squeeze on the benches outside the cafeterias obsessed with sports, cars and stuff…. Average kids. Many from middle class or working class background, not excelling but not failing either, are defined by their common optimism and liveliness. Two years later, you visit these high schools again and only a couple of them are on that bench. The rest have melted away by a common fate, that seems to trap mostly boys.

Jay Green (Leaving Boys Behind: Public High School Graduation Rates )reported that in 2003, nationally 72% of girls graduated compared with 65% of boys while the gap is larger in minority students. The graduation rate for Black female students exceeded that of their male counterparts by eleven percentage points, while the difference for Hispanics was nine percentage points. When it comes to college, 57% of students are women and the ratio is expected to rise to 75% in 2020 ( here is the whole article).

The consequences are dire. According to The Consequences of Dropping Out of High School male dropouts of all races were 47 times more likely to be incarcerated than their peers of a similar age who had graduated from a four-year college or university. In 2008 the unemployment rate for the nation’s high school drop outs reached a staggering 54%. In other words only 46% were employed. The employment rate for high school graduates was 68%, 79% for young adults who had completed 1-3 years of post-secondary schooling, and 87% for college graduates. And since the drop-out phenomenon afflicts more males than females, the consequences are more severe for boys. According to the same report, their mean cumulative earnings from ages 18-64 have seriously declined, along with their marriage rates, home ownership rates, and their tax contributions (this is where it becomes your problem as well). At the same time, the imprisonment rates rose. Young high school dropouts were 63 times more likely to end up in jail than young college graduates. In 2009 according to the NYT, on any given day, one in 10 young male high school dropouts is incarcerated, compared to one in 35 young male high school graduates.



In the first chapter we discussed the power of society in shaping individual behavior, a process not that obvious to the untrained eye. Some students voiced their opposition to the concept, pointing to the power of individual will to shape fate. But again, is it possible that this power is socially encouraged or discouraged? A philosophical labyrinth many would say… depending on the situation others would add…and everyone would have a point. A good one as a matter of fact. However, we have to try and gain an insight. Surveys may reveal some common characteristics and provide the macro level of analysis but the insiders’ assessments are our zoom lens. You have probably observed kids (mostly boys) in high school drop out. How do you explain this phenomenon?

WELCOME

"Advice is seldom welcome, and those who need it the most, like it the least."

Autumn thoughts

I stare at them trying to guess the future. Their future.

I like the cocky confidence, the cheerful humility, the moments of intense concentration and awe despite the constant texting.

The way they change their names from Cody to Fabulous and then Fabio. The optimism when faced with depressing challenges. Amanda’s bravery. Jimmy’s ascent from the projects. Stan’s regression. Pat’s jokes about her teen pregnancy while acing. And Jenny, who explained that “youth is wasted on the young” before dropping out.

I stare at them and I reflect on my past of hesitations and silence.

And of good luck.

So glad I found you.

Our last blog: Thoughts on gratitude.

Some have jokingly recommended that we celebrate Thanksgiving daily in order to improve our health. No pills, no diets, no exercises. Just a long-term positive emotion can be the key to long-term health, as old philosophy and recent research seem to suggest. The ancient philosopher Epicurus considered gratitude a chief prerequisite to happiness, the same way that ingratitude was the chief path to misery. The wise man believed that those who have the power to bury unhappy memories are able to reach happiness. Fools, on the other hand, recall the past just to regret it. They torture themselves with recollection of past mistakes.

Recently psychologists and mental health professionals have been assessing the relationship between gratitude and happiness. It looks like that eternally grateful people score higher on indicators of health, as they seem to be taking better care of themselves. Gratitude also fights stress, a leading cause of illness and responsible for 90% of doctor’s visits. Furthermore, grateful people are more optimistic and optimism seems to boost the immune system. The impact is even more significant on those whose immune system has been compromised or those who are preparing for a stressful event like taking an exam or undergoing surgery. And finally, gratitude appears to lessen the pain of a tragic loss as the sense of belonging may increase and somewhat compensate for the loss.

It may not be easy to feel gratitude, many will retort. Look at the poor in India and their low levels of satisfaction. Correct, but what about the low levels of satisfaction among the very affluent in the developed countries? In October 2008 I listened to David Whyte, a poet and corporate consultant speak of the toxic mentality of CEOs who were miserable because they were making $2-5 million a year and not $6-10.

Well, who appears to be happy then? Mostly, middle class folks. Especially those who rose from poverty.

How can we cultivate a culture of gratitude? It has been suggested that we keep a journal. We write down a list of blessings and ask to what extent we take those for granted. Keep a record of past problematic situations and how we dealt with them. Through resolving these situations, did we benefit by learning something? Keep a record of places you visited and carried a message for you. Keep the memory alive by posting it on a blog. Look for the good side of people and focus on that. Did someone do something for you? Thank them silently if you have not already done this in person. Or simply, as you go to bed, make a few mental entries of things you are grateful for.

I'll give you four entries of mine.
I am grateful for the students who showed resilience, fought the odds and are in school. They are my role-models.
I am grateful I visited Omaha Beach in Normandy. I was reminded of the precious gift of freedom, which was handed to my generation on a silver platter. (I wrote about this trip here)
I am grateful I did not have an accident today.
I am grateful you took the time to write on this blog and allowed me to get to know you a bit better. I thank you.

Back to you. Do you think that keeping a "gratitude journal" makes any sense or is gratitude an overated feeling? If you were to make a few mental entries of things you are grateful for, what would they be?

Affirmative action to close the gender gap?

We seem to be approaching an enrollment ratio of 58% females to 42% males. However, as more men drop out during college than women, around graduation time the ratio will be a disturbing 60 to 40.The gap is even evident in our high schools as more girls graduate and more boys drop out.

Your next vacation....

The environmentalists around the globe are hailing Saturday’s “turn-off the lights for a full hour” a huge success as hundreds of millions of people from an Antarctic research base to the Pyramids of Egypt, from the Acropolis in Athens to Malaysia's landmark Petronas Twin Towers, from Times Square in NYC to Rome's ancient Colosseum, turned off the lights from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) announced a few hours ago that nations have a mandate to deal with climate change. Yvo de Boer, the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat interpreted the event as a mandate for an ambitious course to fight global warming. Representatives of 190 nations launched talks in Bonn last week, designed to culminate in Copenhagen in December, aiming at a new agreement to curb greenhouse gases beyond 2012, when provisions under the Kyoto Protocol expire.

So, what are these greenhouse gases exactly? Chemical compounds in the atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases” allowing sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight hits the Earth’s surface, some of it bounces back in space as infrared radiation. Or heat. According to the ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. The agency explains some of these gases are found in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are human-made (industrial gases for example). The concern over the possible effects on the earth’s environment has fuelled a movement for sustainable development that aims at satisfying human needs without compromising the power of future generations to satisfy theirs.

Within this movement towards sustainable development, mass tourism with its excesses has come under attack while sustainable tourism is being embraced. Sustainable tourism is mainly comprised of agrotourism and ecotourism. Agrotourism means that you visit an agricultural area, stay in local guest houses, eat the local food and observe or even participate in the local rural activities. That is your vacation. No populated beaches (unless the farming area is close to sea), no big resort hotels, no your typical city night-life, fewer green house emissions. Ecotourism is visiting a beautiful natural site on which you impose the minimum damage. A gorge, a lake, a mountain, a river. Small guest houses, local cuisine, quietness, emphasis on preserving the nature, participation in sports the site facilitates (river/kayak, mountains/paragliding). Again, no noise, no urban life style, no resort facilities. Again, fewer green house emissions.

Simple stuff. Not for everyone. Unless of course it becomes fashionable.

If you were to go on a vacation, would you opt for mass tourism with its comforts or would you consider agrotourism/ ecotourism?

Write a note to the Pope

AIDS has extracted a heavy toll in the developing world and especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Let’s look at the numbers: Over 42 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and 74% of the infected are in sub-Saharan Africa. By the year 2010, Ethiopia, Nigeria, China, India, and Russia with 40% of the world's population will add 50 to 75 million infected people to the worldwide pool of HIV sufferers. According to the previously mentioned site, there are 14,000 new infections every day, 95% of which in developing countries. The young are paying a heavy price as the UN estimates that the number of orphans exceeds 14 million while by 2010 it will have reached 25 million.




Within this setting, last week, Pope Benedict XVI, while making his first visit to Africa, re-emphasized the Catholic Church’s position on the use of condoms: "The problem of HIV/AIDS cannot be overcome with mere slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem." Needless to say, the reaction was strong.

Many agreed with the Pope. They say that condoms alone can not solve the problem that has reached endemic dimensions in certain countries. A change of practices, intensified sex education, an emphasis on monogamy, eradication of certain traditions and dispelling myths are necessary steps for alleviating the situation. What’s more, they have been proven to be the right steps as one can see in Uganda.

However, the second part of his statement has drawn heavy criticism. Major newspaper editorials spoke of an unscientific statement, a myth, a scare tactic, that should not have been employed by the head of the Catholic church. The Vatican immediately issued a statement to explain that condoms probably give a false sense of security and therefore abstinence was the only way of prevention. Rebecca Hodes, of the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, answered that opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important than the lives of Africans. The Pontiff emphasized that abstinence and fidelity, not condoms, were the means to tackle the epidemic.

So, would you like to drop a line to the Pontiff? To agree or disagree, to make a point or ask a question? Do so in your usual polite and diplomatic way! At the end of the week I will forward a sample of comments to his Holiness.

PACS: Civil unions for straight couples

A friend of mine, let’s call him Jack, who lives in Paris, France, emailed me that he has decided to tie the knot –so to speak as it turned out- with his girlfriend, Marie, whom he had been living with for five years. Jack moved to Paris after a messy divorce in the US, during which he lost a substantial amount of money to his ex.

Why do I say “so to speak?”

Because the couple did not opt for the traditional marriage but rather for a “civil union” solution, the one we have been reading in the news concerning gay couples. It took 15 minutes in front of a judge and they got their Civil Solidarity Pact (PACS) which gives them a half-way status between living together and getting married.

“Why did you choose such a half-solution? It must be a handful of people opting for this kind of thing” I sort of guessed in an uneducated manner. I understood that the law had been drafted mainly for gays, but since the language was rather ambiguous, it was also adopted by a few straight couples. “Not that few” Jack corrected me. Close to 150,000 couples chose it last year I was informed. It has an air of independence, it has incorporated financial advantages, and it is easier to terminate than a traditional marriage, Jack continued, obviously beaming on the other end.
“It sounds like a substitute for marriage” I pressed.
“But it is” Jack explained. “Don’t you love it?... This is how I declare my independence from society’s rules, expectations. Not to mention the mess of divorce. If either one of us wants to end it, I or Marie, go to the court, declare our wish in writing, and we are done. Neither one has any rights on the other person’s property or money.”

So I decided to do a bit more research on this PACS half-solution. I found that although it was designed for gay couples, 90% of "solidarity pacts" a year are now being made between people of the opposite sex. Indeed, as Jack said, it can be ended with a simple letter from either partner. And indeed it provides near-identical financial and benefits as marriage, like joint tax returns and qualification for deductions. However evaluation of this plan remains difficult as various privacy laws prohibit the collection of statistics on this particular arrangement.

As we observe the collapse of the nuclear family and the rising number of single parents, I wonder whether we are heading towards a PACS alternative in this country too.

Do you think the circumstances are ripe for such a shift in the US? Would you personally support it or oppose it?

Abortion increase in young girls

The number of abortions among girls aged under 16 rose by 10% to 4,376 in 2007, official figures for England and Wales show.

In the under 14s, abortions rose by 21% from 135 in 2006 to 163 last year.
The number of abortions in all women rose by 2.5% to reach an all time high of almost 200,000.
Government advisers called for high quality sex education at school and investment in contraception services for young people.

Scotland has also seen a rise in the number of abortions with figures published in May showing there were 13,703 carried out in 2007 compared with 13,163 in 2006.
The number of abortions carried out has been rising ever since the 1967 Abortion Act - with just over 22,000 terminations in the first year.
In the past decade, the number of abortions in the under 16s has risen by 27%.
But at the same time the teenage pregnancy rate has fallen.

If you want to read the whole article click here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7462934.stm

DO YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ABORTION?