As one would guess, the issue has been demagogued on both sides, and much of the reporting simply obfuscates the real issue.
Obama is right that the bill does contain information that teaches children how to deal with potential sexual abuse. It says, “Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances.” It does say that the sex education is to “…be age and developmentally appropriate.” It even includes a section on abstinence which says, “Sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.”
So what is the big deal? Well, that is not all that it contains and even more troubling is what the legislators in concert with educators deemed to be so offensive and/or objectionable that they deleted it from the original draft.
For example, the following was deleted: “Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.” They say they are pro-family, and yet delete the essence of the family. Again, “Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage.” Also deleted were “Consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual intercourse outside of marriage and the consequences of unwanted adolescent pregnancy.”
Of course such omissions along with the required advice on the best contraceptives for sex before marriage not only promote premarital sex, they actually devalue marriage, the place of marriage in society, and thereby further advance the cultural deconstruction of the family, which destroys culture and makes the burgeoning federal government all the more palatable to the public.
Second, the very notion of teaching sex education, and including all the information about contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases, etc., for kindergarteners, is considerably more than merely seeking to help children fend off potential abusers.
Further, the exemption clause reads “No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course on HIV or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in the course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of the pupil.”
Notice the support is for taking the class, and the exception is one can opt out. Why not offer it as an elective where the burden is upon those who desire this for their child rather than placing the onus upon those who don’t. These educators and politicians seem all too concerned about morals that might prove embarrassing to a child that may live in a homosexual home but are immeasurably cavalier about offending and embarrassing one who lives in a good moral home.
Anyone who has ever been in the real world knows, to opt out is very difficult because of the stigma and/or peer pressure. Moreover, most parents never opt out because they think the sex education is exactly what Obama and teachers say it is, merely a device to protect against sexual abusers, and the tendency is at first one can opt out, then in a few years it becomes mandatory.
Lastly, to present this curriculum as “factual and objective” and “free of…biases” is either so profoundly naive that none of the ones involved should be writing law or teaching any children, or it is intentionally obfuscatory.
Why, to claim to be bias free is almost always a biased statement. Weren’t the deletions and insertions made based upon some bias, e.g. biologically factual information is sufficient to educate children about sex or kindergarteners need this education taught here…?
It is true that the curriculum must require that the information be “medically factual,” which is a good thing. However, an inherent problem in sex education courses taught in public schools is that the clear message that comes through is that sex is merely a pleasurable act and function of biology, like eating and sleeping, and therefore morals, and the spiritual or sacred aspects of a sexual relationship are mere superstition because we are all just biological animals doing a very normal thing in a very normal way for animals.
Thus, the only concerns one should have is, is the relationship physically safe? They may say it all they want, but that is anything but neutral and without its own “biases”. The same can be said for saying that it is without “religious” bias. How does that square with omitting marriage from the curriculum? Isn’t that biased against Christianity?
Of course, the claim of bias neutrality is nonsense since the whole idea of merely a biological basis for sex education, which targets children with information on how to protect themselves while engaging in premarital sex, and treating various “sexual orientations” as morally equivalent is profoundly antichristian.
