At the request of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Board of Health recently approved a ban of sugar-based drinks larger than 16 ounces in the interest of reducing public obesity. This brings the concept of a "nanny state" to a new level.

Apparently, many of the city's residents are just fine with this new regulation and will be until the municipality moves to prohibit one of their desired activities or indulgences as a matter of "the common good."

Then comes the news that the New York City school system has just approved the administration and delivery of the emergency contraception drug "Plan B" to girls 14 years or older by school medical personnel. This can be done without the knowledge or consent of a parent or guardian, unless he or she proactively opts out of the process well in advance.

Depending on the specific status of the egg/sperm, Plan B can be a contraceptive, preventing fertilization, or an abortifacient, inducing the abortion of an embryo by radically elevating the hormone levels in the young lady's body. The drug has notable side effects in almost every case.

In sharp contrast, many or most school districts in our nation prohibit school medical personnel from even dispensing aspirin to children without the parent's explicit approval. How do you reconcile these situations?

Is it just me, or do these two recent NYC-centric events go beyond confusing and into the realm of insanity? Who is in charge there?

In 1996, our current secretary of state penned a somewhat controversial book titled "It Takes a Village." It may now be time for the sequel--"Raising Children: 'Parents Not Required,' Decrees the Village."

Joe Littleton

Stafford