What's new

Sex Education

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Should it be taught in schools?

Why or why not?

Do you agree w/the Governor's veto? What happens next?

Here is the bill's sponsor

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765560397/HB363-protecting-Utah-children.html

The first purpose of HB364 is to take Planned Parenthood's philosophy out of our schools and out of our curriculum. Planned Parenthood's teachings are a bad fit for Utah.

Most parents assume that local teachers or Utah's State Office of Education created the current curriculum and training for sex education. That is not the case. Planned Parenthood — a nationally organized group that promotes promiscuous behavior and abortion — has been a major source for curriculum and teacher training for these programs. Their logo is prominently displayed on USOE's sex-ed training website www.growingupcomesfirst.org


Utah public schools will continue to teach health and human development. These biology classes will be clinical discussions. When the teaching of contraception or alternative life styles becomes the topic, the clinical discussion too easily changes into a counseling session on matters of sex. For school discussions, abstinence only is the safest approach.

Teaching abstinence is a matter of public health.

Kids are inundated with information about sex from many venues. To counter that, there must be at least one reliable source for teaching the benefits of abstinence. The evidence shows that sexually active youth have a significantly higher rate of suicide and depression than their peers who are not sexually active. Sexually active teens, especially boys have a higher propensity to engage in other high-risk activities such as alcohol and drug abuse. People who were sexually active as teens are more than 50 percent more likely to divorce later in life.

Utah has a compelling interest to keep her youth safe and healthy. Condoms are not foolproof in preventing pregnancy or STDs. Abstinence is the only method that is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy and STDs as well as being a strong contributor to emotional health. Those messages needs to be reinforced consistently, not just presented in a spectrum of possible STD reduction methods.

In November of 2011, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention released a report stating that there are 19 million new cases of syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia diagnosed every year in the United States, this does not include an "alarming" increase in human papillomavirus and genital herpes that are not specifically identified in the study because they are not included in the reporting system.

These new cases cost the health care system $17 billion each year.
In the same report the CDC states "STDs are one of the most critical health challenges facing the nation today." The report confirms that these increases are coming at the same time that condom use among teens has increased.

Teens should be taught risk elimination not just risk reduction. It is the responsibility of parents and educators to direct students away from physically unsafe or detrimental lifestyles and toward those that enhance opportunities for successful, healthy futures. It is the responsibility of the Legislature to create scaffolding within the public education structure where educators can do that successfully.

HB363 was necessary to reclaim our schools' curriculum from Planned Parenthood's agenda and give our youth the best opportunities possible for a safe and healthy future.

and then here's what the governor did/said:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...s-controversial-sex-education-bill-HB363.html

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Gov. Gary Herbert late Friday vetoed the controversial sex education bill, turning back the legislative effort to eliminate classroom discussion tied to contraceptives, intercourse and homosexuality.


"Existing law respects the ability of Utah parents to choose if and how their student will receive classroom instruction on these topics," Herbert said in a prepared statement. "I am unwilling to conclude that the State knows better than Utah's parents as to what is best for their children."


Herbert vetoed the bill then attended a Meet the Candidates forum in Heber City Friday night. Following the meeting he confirmed that he considered each side of the issue before deciding to "push the reset button on it."


He said there is a lot of angst in Utah over the issue and he was not ready to change existing law. "We ought to just start over on this conversation," he said.


The bill, HB363, was one of the more controversial issues of the 2012 legislative session and the uproar amplified after lawmakers adjourned, with thousands calling for its veto through phone calls, emails, an online petition and protests at the Capitol.


Gayle Ruzicka, President of the Utah Eagle Forum, said she was disappointed with the governor's decision. The veto, she said, gives students "a stamp of approval" to engage in sexual activities.


"We had 64 legislators vote in favor of that bill," she said. "And one Republican who spends a couple days looking at it caves in to the pressure."


HB363 passed with overwhelming majorities in both legislative chambers, but it would be necessary for some dissenting lawmakers to change their votes in order to overrule the veto. Ally Isom, a spokeswoman for Herbert, said it is the prerogative of the Legislature to challenge the veto if it chooses, but that possibility did not influence the governor's decision.


"The governor makes his decisions irrespective of what they will do," she said.


After careful consideration of the bill, Herbert decided it went too far, she said.


"He feels he can't sign a bill that restricts a parent's choices," she said.


Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, said that he continues to support the bill and doesn't see how the governor thinks it limits the choice of parents.


"Maybe he didn't understand it," Waddoups said.


Current law requires parents to opt-in their students in districts where instruction on contraceptives is presented. HB363 would have removed that requirement by establishing a uniform abstinence-only curriculum across the state.


"If HB363 were to become law, parents would no longer have the option the overwhelming majority is currently choosing for their children," Herbert said in the statement.


Sen. Aaron Osmond, R-South Jordan, said he was not surprised by the governor's decision and said it's clear Herbert had taken the time to carefully consider the bill. He said he still believes there is a risk of students being exposed to inappropriate material and that the Legislature has a responsibility to address the content of sex education courses. But he also said HB363 was drafted without ample feedback from the education community.


"We do need to reach out to our education experts," he said. "We do need to involve them."


Ruzicka and the Eagle Forum lobbied aggressively in support of the bill and she said that she did not expect lawmakers to attempt to overrule the veto. "Everyone is tired of it," she said, noting the Eagle Forum will now focus on educating parents on what their children are really being presented in the classroom.


In addition to the feedback from the public, many groups had issued statements urging the governor to veto the bill. Liz Zentner, President-elect of the Utah PTA said she was grateful for Herbert's decision. She called it difficult, but courageous, and said she was impressed with Utah parents who went from a silent to a loud majority.


"The majority of parents want their students to have this information," she said.



Rep. Bill Wright, R-Holden, who sponsored the bill, could not be reached Friday but has said that in addition to reasserting the role of parents in the education of their children, he was motivated by what he perceived as inappropriate material being presented in schools. Specifically, he mentioned material developed by Planned Parenthood and links on the Utah State Office of Education website that directed users to Planned Parenthood content.


Representatives from both organizations said that collaboration ended last year. But the sentiment gained momentum in the Legislature and helped push its passage.


The bill drew condemnation from thousands who voiced their opinions through social media and in calls to the governor's office, fearing the bill could keep potentially life-saving information from students who might not receive it otherwise. Others supported the bill that attempted to put the focus of sex education into the home.


Sen. Margaret Dayton the bill's Senate sponsor, said Wright had tried for years to have the website links taken down. But it was not until HB363 favorably passed the House Education Committee that the two organizations were "decoupled."


"It was the links between the State Office of Education and Planned Parenthood that urged (Wright), in reality, to tighten up the abstinence-only teaching," Dayton, R-Orem, said.


But Karrie Galloway, CEO of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, said those links were removed nearly one year ago. They were removed after a Bountiful parent complained about the content of a maturation presentation produced by Planned Parenthood called "Growing Up Comes First" and the apparent endorsement of that program on the office of education's website.


After the bill cleared the Legislature, Galloway said there was talk that a lingering image of the education board's logo may have inadvertently remained somewhere in their system. But she said their website and materials had since been searched "with a fine-toothed comb" to remove any and all references to the office of education.


"When the whole fracas happened last spring, we thought we had removed every recommendation by the State Office of Education," Galloway said.


Galloway said "Growing Up Comes First" is used by a number of school districts in their fifth- and sixth-grade maturation programs and for years, Planned Parenthood worked with the board of education to make the program available to schools. Galloway said there is nothing objectionable in the material and added that districts were free to incorporate or abandon portions of "Growing Up Comes First" as they deemed fit for their students.


"I find it to be a very well-respected curriculum and it is sensitive to local communities," she said.


The program focuses on the developmental changes that accompany puberty, she said, and educates students on topics like acne and body hair and gender-specific subjects. Typically, schools separate students by gender and present only the information relevant to each group.


Brenda Hales, associate superintendent for Instructional Services with the State Office of Education, confirmed that any links to Planned Parenthood on their website were removed prior to the legislative session as a response to the complaint filed last spring. She said the links in question had been put up in 1996 and took some digging to find on the website. But in the years since their posting, she said the pages they directed users to had changed to contain potentially offensive material.


"We were surprised by the link," she said. "There were some aspects about it that were walking the line."


A bill nearly-identical to HB363 was sponsored by Wright in 2000 and was subsequently vetoed by then-Gov. Mike Leavitt at the urging of the State Board of Education. As part of that veto, a number of rules were set in place regarding sex education, including the requirement for parents to opt-in their students, a requirement that all sex education materials be approved at the district level by a committee of parents and the district school board, and a mechanism for parents to lodge complaints.


Current law also permits school districts to implement a curriculum that is more conservative than what is allowed by law and four districts currently teach an abstinence-only curriculum.


Hales said the only documented complaint that reached the state office in the 12 years since those rules were enacted was that of the Bountiful parent last spring addressing the website links. She also said that while there is no hard data available, it is estimated that between 92 and 95 percent of parents grant permission for their children to attend sex education and maturation courses.


Weber State University announced this week that if signed into law, the bill would require it to discontinue concurrent enrollment courses that currently serve 850 Weber and Davis county students.
 
I think it should be taught to highschool students but sex has no place in the elementary schools, middle school is debatable. Also I'd take a long close look at what is taught. Ignoring the issue is stupid.
 
I think that it should be offered but parents should have the right to opt their child out. That said, why would a parent desire to do so?

I know that with our three daughters we, especially my wife, have been very proactive with their sexual education.
 
I think the law should be that the teacher is required on day 1 of class to yell out PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENIS really loudly to get things kicked off and whomever snickers/giggles gets kicked out of class, and those 1 or 2 poor souls that are mature enough at that age to actually get something out of the class are forced to take it with the 1 or 2 poor souls from every other class that make it through the giggle test.

My future kids will laugh, that's all I'm saying.
 
It should be taught. Parents should not have the right to opt out.

Sex is real. Kids need to know about it. They need to know the consequences if the act isn't performed with proper safety. They also need to be shown videos of pregnant teens explaining how much their life sucks.
 
"Teaching kids how to have sex" is such a ******** term.

I'm sure all the middle school boys get boners learning about fallopian tubes. Sex ed was boring. It doesn't encourage sex, it just makes sure kids grow up understanding basic human biology.
 
So you are good with the government usurping parental rights?

If a parent doesn't want their kid learning math do they have the right to tell the school "Hey, don't teach my kid math!"? Sex education is a very important thing for everybody to learn about. Some kids shouldn't be deprived of it because of their parents.
 
What this? An example of the multitude of ways socialism just goes into the ditch?

Public schools are an abomination. Not just in financial terms in regard to the expense in proportion to the product, but in social terms. When will we all decide we can teach our own kids according to either their own interests and needs, or our own reasoned values, whatever they may be.

Democracy is a bad thing when it devolves into the rule of a majority, no matter by what percentage, over individual liberty.

So if we get a Mormon or other religious majority in any population voting for their values just like the socialists and progressives do for theirs, how is that any worse than having political ideologues dictating what schools must teach?

Get the government out of the habit of being forced to dictate to the people by contentious zealots striving for their causes. Just say "no" to government power.

The whole reason we have a federal government, and a Constitution, was from the beginning to make it possible for disparate people to unite in merely essential things like protecting our liberty from the imperialist interests abroad.
 
The article leading this topic was written by a senator voting for the bill. The editorial in support of the veto: [URL="https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765560561/Thoughtful-veto-of-sex-education-bill.html?pg=1"/URL]

Many have commented on the pragmatism exemplified in this year's legislative session. But in the latter half of the session, the Legislature asked an important question that caught many by surprise and has sparked considerable debate.

The question: How should we teach children about human sexuality in the public schools?

This is an important question about a profound responsibility. How we teach about sex is more than an issue of biology or public health. It affects the emotional and physical well-being of our children. It influences culture, family life and sexual mores. For all these reasons, it is an understandably emotional issue for Utah's families.

Given the current curriculum's core focus on abstinence and fidelity, given the current requirement for parental notification and approval, given the very high rates at which parents have opted into the current program and given ongoing broad public opinion in favor of what is taught in the current curriculum, it was surprising that the Legislature felt a need to push through additional restrictions on how Utah schools teach human sexuality.

In an ideal world, accurate, authoritative and wise teaching about human reproduction and guidance about the wonder, challenge and moral responsibility entailed in human intimacy would be the exclusive domain of families.

But we live in a less than perfect world. Because of dysfunction, dissolution, cultural attitudes or misinformation, not every family will provide clear guidance to their children about this vital aspect of their lives. In a culture that is saturated with manipulative, misleading and inaccurate messages about sexuality, we believe that a well-designed public school curriculum on health and human sexuality can be an important resource to families in their private efforts to teach children about sexual health and responsibility.

Indeed, factual, developmentally appropriate and abstinence-focused curriculum delivered by trained teachers can complement and reinforce parental teaching on these matters. And for those parents who, for whatever reason, might feel otherwise, the current system's opt-in structure gives them full control over how their children are taught these topics.

This year's restrictive legislation, known as HB363, came with the best of intent. It appreciated that abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage are the surest safeguard of physical and emotional health as it relates to intimacy.

But HB363 also came with a large dose of misunderstanding. The discussion of the bill was clouded with inaccurate characterizations of the abstinence-focused content of the current curriculum and confusion about serious issues surrounding a separate elementary school maturation program that is not even affected by the bill. The bill inexplicably wrested from local control this aspect of curriculum that seems particularly suited to local parental involvement. Moreover, there appeared to be no natural demand for the changes. The effort to legislatively overhaul a program that didn't seem broken created confusion and the potential for serious unintended consequences.

How and what we teach our children about human sexuality in our public schools is an issue of vital public trust. Although this year's bill on the issue followed a regular and timely legislative process, our sense is that the public felt the issue passed them by without a full vetting. Because of the need for broader agreement and understanding and the need to provide parents with more and better options in their partnership with schools on this topic, we appreciate more time and deliberation on the issue. We believe that more discussion will provide better results and better understanding about aims on which most of Utah's families can agree. It is with that hope for better results that we welcome Gov. Gary Herbert's veto of HB363, not to punish good intentions, but to ensure the kind of deliberation that will secure the best results.
 
My representative voted against the bill. I've sent him an email thanking him.
 
If a parent doesn't want their kid learning math do they have the right to tell the school "Hey, don't teach my kid math!"? Sex education is a very important thing for everybody to learn about. Some kids shouldn't be deprived of it because of their parents.

Aaaand Darkwing D-Bag is right yet again.
 
"Teaching kids how to have sex" is such a ******** term.

I'm sure all the middle school boys get boners learning about fallopian tubes. Sex ed was boring. It doesn't encourage sex, it just makes sure kids grow up understanding basic human biology.

This, with the other side. Unless you are lamb, the Y chromosome is born knowing where to cram it. I asked my mom to opt me out b/c I knew about chewin and screwin, smokin and pokin, ticklin and picklin years before.

It really says something about the state of human consciousness when we think we need to compulsively mind **** our children into knowin about ****in. I don't really give a rats *** what you force my children to learn in this area because they will either know about it before hand or will be too innocent to care what you're saying.


Who gives a damn? Shouldn't we be more more worried about Frothy Rick wanting to bannish what we watch inside the privacy of our homes actually having a shot at the presidency?
 
Last edited:
What this? An example of the multitude of ways socialism just goes into the ditch?

Public schools are an abomination. Not just in financial terms in regard to the expense in proportion to the product, but in social terms. When will we all decide we can teach our own kids according to either their own interests and needs, or our own reasoned values, whatever they may be.

Democracy is a bad thing when it devolves into the rule of a majority, no matter by what percentage, over individual liberty.

So if we get a Mormon or other religious majority in any population voting for their values just like the socialists and progressives do for theirs, how is that any worse than having political ideologues dictating what schools must teach?

Get the government out of the habit of being forced to dictate to the people by contentious zealots striving for their causes. Just say "no" to government power.

The whole reason we have a federal government, and a Constitution, was from the beginning to make it possible for disparate people to unite in merely essential things like protecting our liberty from the imperialist interests abroad.

YOUR individual liberty or that of your child? Or are they one and the same? I agree with rule of majority being a bad idea, but why is your random alternative any better? The only system that works is Rule by Reason. Is it better to leave sex education to parents or not? Why? Or why not?
 
If your sexually stupid kid gets another kid pregnant, can their parents sue you for opting your kid out of sex education?
 
Back
Top