Little research has explored parental views on the issue. An additional eligible parents declined and were not available to participate. More than half However, For exceptions to PNLs,
In Planned Parenthood Association v. Studies show that preventing teens from getting contraceptives cknsent they tell a parent won't stop teenagers from fog sex. Parental consent for contraceptives indicate that one of the major causes of delay by adolescents in seeking contraception is fear of parental discovery and that many would avoid seeking services altogether if parental involvement were required. Data for this study come from a telephone cinsent conducted with a sample of parents of adolescents aged 13 to 17 years living in Minnesota and Wisconsin, from March 6 through June 29, McNary A. Family Secrets. Most Popular. Accessed March 22, Pharmacists Prescribing Contraceptives Large tits sex Minors Several states have successfully advanced the pharmacy profession by allowing pharmacists to prescribe contraceptives to patients TABLE 1a task previously restricted to other healthcare practitioners i. Most parents
Blondie lyric song. Stay Informed
Mandatory notification poses the same danger of discouraging contraceptive use by teens as does the requirement of consent. Teenage girls have the highest reported rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea. Related CE. Carey, U. Parental fear Girl sucking cucumber also Parental consent for contraceptives with reluctance to seek birth Parental consent for contraceptives. The government cannot mandate healthy family communication. We want to hear what you think about this article. Students in schools that make condoms available without requiring parental notification are less likely to have ever had sexual intercourse than students at schools that don't provide condoms confidentially. Harlap et al. US Pharm. For these reasons, the leading medical organizations oppose laws that would require teens to involve their parents before they can get contraception. Reports have outlined remarkable success in Colorado, for example, where adolescents and low-income women were offered free IUDs or contraceptive implants—and teen pregnancy plummeted by 40 percent. Accessed February 13,
As a result, parental consent is generally needed for medical care.
- As a result, parental consent is generally needed for medical care.
- This year, students at 2, schools in the United States have access to a wide range of on-site health services, free of charge.
- Currently, no state or federal laws require minors to get parental consent in order to get contraception.
- Jump to navigation Skip navigation.
Little research has explored parental views on the issue. An additional eligible parents declined and were not available to participate. More than half However, For exceptions to PNLs, Each additional anticipated positive consequence of enacting PNLs was significantly associated with more than twice the odds of favoring PNLs odds ratio [OR], 2.
Likewise, each additional exception endorsed was associated with lower odds of supporting PNLs OR, 0. Educating parents about the potential negative consequences of parental notification could change their support of PNLs. Although policies vary widely from state to state, a variety of laws and statutes allow adolescents to obtain certain health care services on a confidential basis.
Health care providers physicians, nurses, etc and professional organizations have been clear in their support for confidential health care for minors seeking reproductive services. According to the American Medical Association,. Uncertainty about whether health services will be confidential is perceived by both physicians and adolescents as a factor that may lead some adolescents to suppress relevant information or delay or avoid medical visits.
The delay or failure to seek necessary care may result in more serious short- or long-term complications. Taken together, the body of research with adolescents suggests that withholding assurances of confidentiality in reproductive health care for minors poses threats to individual and public health.
One published study by Cutler and colleagues 13 found that Minnesota parents were not knowledgeable about state laws concerning adolescent medical care. Ultimately, such discourse can exert a strong influence in policy decisions affecting the health of young people. Thus, findings from this study can inform public discourse on adolescent health services policies and shape public education efforts regarding health care services that are responsive to adolescent health needs.
Data for this study come from a telephone survey conducted with a sample of parents of adolescents aged 13 to 17 years living in Minnesota and Wisconsin, from March 6 through June 29, Telephone lists were purchased from Genesys Sampling Systems with the goals of 1 maximizing the proportion of calls reaching parents of adolescents aged 13 to 17 years and 2 achieving a sample representative of race and population density distributions within each state.
Of the telephone calls made, reached eligible contacts. Eligible persons were Minnesota or Wisconsin parents with at least 1 adolescent child aged 13 to 17 years living in the home and who were physically able to complete the interview and spoke English.
A total of parents in Minnesota and in Wisconsin completed the minute survey, representing This response rate is similar to those of other recent large telephone surveys conducted with purchased lists. Study investigators developed the telephone survey instrument through a systematic review of items that have been used in various state and national surveys of young people and parents.
Information on the psychometric properties of key survey measures have been published previously. Completion of the telephone interview implied consent to participate, and the institutional review boards of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee approved all study protocols.
In your opinion, is this a good idea, a bad idea, or neither a good nor a bad idea [question A]? The clinic would wait for proof that the letter arrived, plus wait 5 more days before providing birth control to the teen. Do you think sending a letter like this is a good idea, a bad idea, or neither a good nor a bad idea [question B]? To control for reinforcing or saliency effect artifacts, the computer from Computer Aided Technology, Inc was programmed to randomize the order in which PNL exceptions and consequences were presented during the interview.
The numbers of positive and negative consequences expected and the number of exceptions endorsed were summed separately to create 3 continuous measures. Sampling weights adjusted the proportion of Wisconsin participants from different racial backgrounds to reflect the proportion of white and nonwhite participants in Wisconsin according to Census Bureau reports.
The Minnesota sample was proportional to the state on this characteristic, so it was not weighted. We reported the proportion of parents giving each response for the 3 PNL items, each perceived consequence, and each possible exception. The final sample for each analysis included only respondents who reported that the current practice or the proposed law was a good or a bad idea.
For multivariate models, we entered all 3 key independent variables number of exceptions and perceived positive and perceived negative consequences and all demographic and personal characteristics simultaneously. The patterns of relationships with independent variables were markedly similar for the 3 PNL items questions A, B, and C.
For clarity of presentation, and because question C was presented during the interview as the summary question that addressed overall parental attitudes toward PNLs, we only report results of bivariate and multivariate analyses completed with question C. Most respondents were white Approximately half Approximately one quarter of respondents More than one third Almost half One third Almost half of parents Some combinations of responses to questions A, B, and C highlight the complexity of views on this topic.
Most parents anticipated some consequences if PNLs were enacted Table 3. A slight majority of parents Only 9. Few parents Conversely, almost all parents Three quarters Most parents also anticipated more teen pregnancies Table 3 also illustrates exceptions to PNLs that were supported by parents. Most parents The most commonly endorsed exceptions included cases in which an adolescent was abused or involved in incest Most parents also favored waiving parental notification if an adolescent was at risk of harm from the parent Mothers vs fathers , parents with more liberal political orientations, parents with more education, and parents with higher incomes were less likely to favor PNLs.
In the multivariate logistic regression in which all variables in Table 4 were entered simultaneously, associations between views on PNLs and the numbers of perceived positive consequences OR, 2. Of demographic factors included in the multivariate model, only political orientation remained significantly associated with PNL views, such that more liberal parents tended to be less in favor of PNLs OR, 0.
These results paint a complicated picture of parental views on the rights of minors to consent for contraceptives and PNLs. Approximately half believe that, overall, PNLs are a good idea. However, these are not necessarily opposite halves of the sample.
For example, although parents might want their teenager to have access to contraceptives unencumbered by the need to obtain assurance of parental notification, they also might favor policies that they believe would facilitate communication with their adolescent, such as PNLs. Alternately, different wordings in each question eg, use of the word law in 2 of 3 items may also mean that items were tapping into slightly different constructs. These different constructs may account for the complex findings in this study.
Findings related to the anticipated consequences of PNLs concur with previous research with adolescent girls. Most parents who completed this survey, like the girls in the study by Reddy and colleagues, 12 anticipated declines or delays in clinic visits, along with increases in unprotected intercourse and use of nonprescription birth control methods, should clinics be required to notify parents before providing contraceptive services.
Few parents in the present study 3. If these expectations predict actual behavior, increases in pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections might be unanticipated outcomes of enacting legislation that would impede or restrict access to and use of reproductive health care services among young people. These potential individual and public health consequences of foregone services should be emphasized in discussions about PNLs with parents and policy makers.
This study has several limitations. First, the sample was drawn from 2 neighboring states, and more than half of eligible parents chose not to participate in this study. Thus, the sample may not be representative of all parents of teenagers. Although the response rate in the present study is not unusual for contemporary telephone surveys, nonparticipants may systematically differ from participants on some characteristic related to the study objectives and the key variables addressed herein.
Second, although many influences expected to be relevant to parental views on PNLs were assessed in this study, others were not. The selection of particular items at the expense of others is a shortcoming common to all survey research; future studies should consider additional psychosocial, familial, or cultural factors that might reveal reasons for supporting or opposing minor consent laws or PNLs. This study also has several strengths.
To our knowledge, this study is one of the first to survey directly a large sample of parents of teenagers on these issues. Views of health care providers and youth are already represented in position statements and extant research literature. These sample characteristics increase the extent to which findings may reflect views of the larger population of parents of adolescents aged 13 to 17 years within these 2 states.
Finally, survey items have been previously validated, which reduces measurement error as a source of bias in study findings. In keeping with position papers and statements of professional organizations, health care providers may wish to educate parents about the likelihood of adverse consequences eg, increased rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections and the improbability of positive consequences eg, youth choosing abstinence.
Characteristics of the sample. Back to top Article Information.
Matheson , for example, a federal district court recognized that teenagers' ""'decisions whether to accomplish or prevent conception are among the most private and sensitive,'"" and concluded that ""the state may not impose a blanket parental notification requirement on minors seeking to exercise their constitutionally protected right to decide whether to bear or beget a child by using contraceptives. Compliance with consent laws for minors requesting hormonal contraceptives should be incorporated into practice by pharmacists. Susan M. But some argue that SBHCs make it easier to get contraception—and, therefore, engage in sexual activity—because the services are so accessible, particularly for younger girls who are less capable of traveling to get birth control on their own. POL'Y, Aug. McNary A. The U.
Parental consent for contraceptives. Stay Informed
Accessed February 13, Accessed February 27, Guttmacher Institute. North Carolina G. Responsibility, liability and immunity of physicians. McNary A. Consent to treatment of minors. Innov Clin Neurosci. Pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptives: results of the Direct Access study. J Am Pharm Assoc Pharmacists prescribing birth control: improving access and advancing the profession. Pharmacy Times. November Colorado State Board of Pharmacy approved statewide protocol for prescribing hormonal contraceptive patches and oral contraceptives.
Accessed February 12, OAR Contraceptive—delivery of care: age requirements. Rafie S. California pharmacists can prescribe birth control. April Pharmacist-provided self-administered contraception frequently asked questions.
Accessed February 15, Accuracy of self-screening for contraindications to combined oral contraceptive use. Obstet Gynecol. Feasibility of a self-completed history questionnaire in women requesting repeat combined hormonal contraception. Contraception for adolescents. Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation. Oral contraceptive pills. Accessed March 22, Featured Issue Featured Supplements. Subscribe Jobs. US Pharm. Consent Requirements for Minors At the federal level, the Title X Family Planning Program issues grants to clinics across the country that provide family planning and related preventive health services.
Considerations in Dispensing Contraception to Minors State laws and court decisions can impact how pharmacists dispense hormonal contraceptives for minors. Pharmacists Prescribing Contraceptives to Minors Several states have successfully advanced the pharmacy profession by allowing pharmacists to prescribe contraceptives to patients TABLE 1 , a task previously restricted to other healthcare practitioners i. Courts find that the requirements impermissibly conflict with federal program requirements.
Federal program rules mandating confidentiality preempt state efforts to make new requirements. Both Consent and Notification Damage Teens Parental contact requirements discourage teens from seeking contraception , even though they may already be sexually active. Confidentiality can be a determining factor for teens deciding whether or not to seek contraceptive protection 2.
Teenagers Need Access to Contraceptive Services Almost half of women in the United States have intercourse by the time that they turn 18 3. While the teen pregnancy rate today has dropped slightly in the past twenty years, almost one million teens become pregnant each year.
Lack of contraception increases the chances of unintended pregnancy. Teen pregnancy rates are much higher in the U. About three million U. Parental Contact Laws Threaten Teens' Health Supporters of measures forcing teens to notify or get consent from their parents argue that they promote the best interests of young women and improve family communications.
These arguments are out of touch with reality. These proposed laws threaten adolescent health and well-being. Even teens who could comply with parental consent requirements will face delays in getting contraceptive services. Additional clinic visits, missed school or work time, and increased expense will result.
Many young women live in nontraditional situations—with one parent, a stepparent, other relatives, or on their own. Contact with biological parents, if required by law, may be impossible. Some teens face violence or other severe consequences from parents as a result of informing their parents that they are seeking contraceptive services.
Minors fearful of retribution may forgo using contraception altogether, even though they are already sexually active. Teens who seek contraceptive services are generally sexually active already. They benefit from meeting with health care providers, who can provide screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and education about other reproductive health concerns. States May Not Impose Additional Restrictions on Title X Programs Several courts have found that state parental consent requirements may not be imposed on federally funded family planning programs.
Where states accept Title X and Medicaid funds, they cannot require minors to obtain parental consent prior to using those services. Parental Consent for Contraception Is Unconstitutional Minors have a right to privacy that includes their ability to use contraception. The U. Supreme Court said in that denial of contraception is not a permissible way to deter sexual activity.
According to the U. Access to contraceptive services is considered a fundamental privacy right and has remained so for over three decades.
Jump to navigation Skip navigation. Today, in every state, sexually active teenagers can get contraceptives to protect themselves against unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases - even if they can't talk about sex with their parents. But some state and federal lawmakers want to take away teens' ability to protect themselves. They want to prevent sexually active teenagers from getting birth control unless they first tell their parents. These proposals would radically alter long-standing public health policy and put teenagers at risk.
Studies show that preventing teens from getting contraceptives unless they tell a parent won't stop teenagers from having sex. It will just drive them away from the services they need to protect themselves, leading to higher rates of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases STDs , including HIV. For these reasons, the leading medical organizations oppose laws that would require teens to involve their parents before they can get contraception.
Such laws would endanger teens' health and lives and violate their rights. Some people say that allowing teenagers to get contraceptives without first telling a parent encourages them to become sexually active and that, conversely, requiring teenagers to tell their parents before they get birth control would discourage sexual activity.
But research about how teenagers behave flatly contradicts this theory. Teenagers don't become sexually active because they can go to a family planning provider and get contraceptives confidentially. In fact, on average, young women in the U. Students in schools that make condoms available without requiring parental notification are less likely to have ever had sexual intercourse than students at schools that don't provide condoms confidentially. Moreover, in schools where condoms are readily available, those teens who do have sex are twice as likely as other students to have used a condom during their last sexual encounter.
The research thus shows that requiring teens to tell a parent before they can access contraceptive services doesn't reduce their sexual activity - it will just put their health and lives at risk. For example, a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association looked at what sexually active teenage girls seeking services at family planning clinics in Wisconsin would do if they could not get prescription contraceptives unless the clinic notified their parents.
As this research shows, guarantees of confidentiality are one of the prime factors influencing whether a teenager will seek vital health services. In fact, in a nationwide study, the leading reason teenagers gave for not getting health care they knew they needed was concerns about confidentiality. Cutting off teenagers' access to contraceptives doesn't stop them from having sex, it just drives them out of doctors' offices.
When teenagers don't visit family planning providers, not only do they forego contraceptive services, they also miss or dangerously postpone screening and treatment for STDs, routine gynecological exams, and other vital health care services. Teenagers are already a high risk population:.
If teenagers are prevented from getting contraceptives unless they involve a parent, these alarming numbers are likely to increase. A sexually active teen who does not use contraception has a 90 percent chance of getting pregnant within one year. In a single act of unprotected sex with an infected partner, a teenage girl has a 1 percent risk of acquiring HIV, a 30 percent risk of getting genital herpes, and a 50 percent chance of contracting gonorrhea.
Medical experts caution that when teenagers cannot obtain contraceptives without involving a parent, they are less likely to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and STDs. For this reason, the leading medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Public Health Association, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine, among others, oppose laws that would require teens to involve a parent.
These groups have been vocal opponents of efforts to impose parental notification or consent requirements in federally funded programs. As these experts explained in a recent letter to Congress:. Mandating parental involvement is likely to discourage many teens from seeking family planning services, placing them at an increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancies.
Studies indicate that one of the major causes of delay by adolescents in seeking contraception is fear of parental discovery and that many would avoid seeking services altogether if parental involvement were required.
The government cannot mandate healthy family communication. Federal law already requires health care providers in federally funded family planning clinics to encourage teenagers to talk to their parents about their health care decisions. Many teens, however, simply will not seek contraception if they cannot obtain it confidentially.
Some justifiably fear that disclosure to their parents will lead to abandonment or abuse. Some simply have no caring and responsible parent to whom they can turn. Others live in families where sexuality is never openly discussed.
As the New Jersey Supreme Court found, laws mandating parental involvement in teenagers' reproductive health care decisions ""cannot transform a household with poor lines of communication into a paradigm of the perfect American family.
The United States Constitution protects a minor's right to privacy in obtaining contraceptives. In Carey v. Population Services International , the Supreme Court relied on minors' privacy rights to invalidate a New York law that prohibited the sale of condoms to adolescents under The Court concluded that the ""right to privacy in connection with decisions affecting procreation extends to minors as well as adults.
The Court held that the state interest in discouraging adolescents' sexual activity was not furthered by withholding from them the means to protect themselves. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained, to deny teenagers access to contraception in an effort to impress upon them the evils of underage sex is as irrational as if ""a State decided to dramatize its disapproval of motorcycles by forbidding the use of safety helmets.
Following the principles articulated in Carey , lower courts have invalidated parental involvement requirements for contraception. In Planned Parenthood Association v.
Matheson , for example, a federal district court recognized that teenagers' ""'decisions whether to accomplish or prevent conception are among the most private and sensitive,'"" and concluded that ""the state may not impose a blanket parental notification requirement on minors seeking to exercise their constitutionally protected right to decide whether to bear or beget a child by using contraceptives.
In addition to minors' constitutional rights, two of the most important sources of federal family planning funds in the nation - Title X and Medicaid - mandate confidentiality for teenagers seeking contraceptive services in those programs.
Federal courts have consistently ruled that parental consent and notification requirements impermissibly conflict with this mandate. Moreover, virtually every state has passed laws permitting teenagers to obtain care for STDs without involving a parent and most have express legal provisions guaranteeing confidential access to contraceptives as well. Even in those states without express laws, teens still have a constitutional right to access confidential care.
Forced parental involvement would represent a dangerous reversal of long-standing public health policies. Linda Hock-Long, et al. Susan M. Blake, et al. Diane M. Reddy, et al. Cathy Schoen, et al. Thrall, et al. Ford, et al. Zabin, et al. Kathleen L. House of Representatives Jun. Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l , U. Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Matheson , F. Utah quoting Carey, U.
Jones, F. Utah holding that state regulation requiring parental consent for contraceptives violates teenagers' constitutional right to privacy , aff'd mem. Doe v. Irwin, F. Utah ; County of St. Charles, Missouri v. Missouri Family Health Council , F. Dandoy , F. Utah Dep't of Health , F.
Heckler , F. ON PUB. POL'Y, Aug. Know your rights. For almost years, the ACLU has worked to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Facebook Twitter Reddit Email Print. Preventing Teenagers from Getting Contraceptives Unless They Tell a Parent Puts Teens at Risk Today, in every state, sexually active teenagers can get contraceptives to protect themselves against unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases - even if they can't talk about sex with their parents.
Teenagers are already a high risk population: Over half of all new HIV infections in the United States occur in adolescents.
Teenage girls have the highest reported rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea. As these experts explained in a recent letter to Congress: "Most teens seeking services at [federally funded programs] are already sexually active. AGI, supra note 7. Planned Parenthood v. Farmer , A. Take the pledge. Related Issues Reproductive Freedom.