“All my friends say, ‘This really sucks,’” said Misky Salad, a 10-year-old fifth-grader at Chelsea Heights Elementary. “A lot of us feel it should be up to us to determine what we should do with our bodies.”So, what do we do when two liberal social programs collide? Should women be able to decide what to do with their bodies? Or only if they're not obese?
I actually think the underlying philosophy is that the government, not the parent, is to decide what girls can and cannot do with their bodies. So, it's considered acceptable for a school nurse to give birth control to a child without her parents' permission. But if Mom sends a Little Debbie in her daughter's lunch, it's a crisis.
This isn't a new trend among do-gooders and social reformers. Chesterton wrote about this a century ago in What's Wrong With The World, though at the time the argument centered on poor girls having long hair.
Whenever we decide to 'uplift' a population, we end up denying parental rights. Why? I suspect it's because we see the poor as 'less human' than we are. We don't ask mothers, "What do you want for your daughters?" Instead, like farmers trying to raise the perfect livestock, we make decrees intended to produce the ideal breed of urban woman.
Of course, the answer to these plots against parental rights is to treat each other as beloved children of God. That is why religious schools seem to do better with poor children. They see the kids as people, not an inferior species in need of 'improvement.' Meanwhile, the same class that rails against factory farming of animals demands factory farming of children. Well, of other people's children. If their own children were subjected to such strict rules, it would be an unfair encroachment on parental rights. Because, you see, the reformers are the RIGHT kind of parent.