Emma Waitzman, 17, a junior at West High, presented an East Coast study that showed abstinence-based sex education, compared to comprehensive sex education, didn’t change the rate of sexual activity of teens. And teens who received the complete facts had a lower pregnancy rate.
But democracy rules when it comes to what’s taught in this state’s schools, said Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield. “Our value system in Utah is a lot different than in other states,” he said.
Ray countered the students with a philosophy of stronger parents’ rights and less government intervention.
“It comes back to parenting. It should be taught in the home,” he said. “We don’t want people teaching things to our kids that we don’t approve of.”
The Planned Parenthood Action Committee organized the meeting with Ray to offer him students’ perspective on the issue.
Gabriella Huggins, 15, a West High freshman, agreed it comes down to parenting. “And we are becoming parents too young and too easily,” she said.
[...] Waitzman did an unscientific off-campus survey of 50 students at Clearfield High School and 57 students at West High.
Approximately half of the students surveyed stated they are sexually active. A total of 32 percent incorrectly answered one or both of two basic questions regarding sexually transmitted diseases. Thirty percent stated sex education in their school is insufficient.
The catalyst for the debate was a bill sponsored by Rep. Lynn Hemingway, D-Salt Lake, which was tabled during the 2009 session. The bill would have changed Utah law to ensure educators could instruct students — upon student request — about the facts of STD’s and contraception without fear of job loss or reprimand.
Can someone explain to me why allowing such a thing is so unthinkable (Without quoting Mike Huckabee)?
There are so many things to insult in this story and I have so little time. Let me do it in bullets.
*Most parents are idiots. They teach their kids nothing.
* Mormon parents are responsbile people, but my guess is the main thesis of their sex talk with kids is based on keeping Jesus and not about the responsibility that having sex brings with it.
* Why can’t we trust educators to…ummm…educate? Health professionals do a great job in teaching kids what they need to know.
Sex exists. This is a good thing. Three cheers for sex!!!
Yeah. I really don’t get this. It seems to me that the same people who are anti-abortion/pro-life are also anti education/anti-entitlement program (WIC, BYB, CHIP, etc.) to help raise the child. I think education has got to be one of the tools in the prolife kit. We don’t live in a perfect society where every child will be wanted and will be loved. The prolife side has got to come up with some education to prevent the pregnancy in the first place, or at least comunicate the responsiblities of a child. Keeping kids in the dark for them to figure things out themselves, will not turn out well. For sure the responsibilty is the parents, but obviously some aren’t doing enough.
To Harry…whether something is insulting or not shouldn’t be YOUR standard of value.
Otherwise, the conservative position is against sex ed in school because parents are the proper level of government to administer the “program.”
When the state has custody of a child, the state can do as it wishes, but until that time parents are the proper level of government to handle this issue.
Why the bill in question might look good to you but not me has to do with bigger levels of government looking good to you and not me.
And it makes very little sense to argue that parents often fail in their roles. Whether Left or Right, it seems to me that I recall hearing nearly universal disgust with not letting people (businesses) fail.
The “safety net” in this particular case would be the other non-governmental institutions of civil society that embrace a family…extended family, church, neighborhood, community groups, etc.
Beyond these arguments, the fact is that there a many “studies” out about the efficacy of abstinence-based programs and full-blown sex ed school programs. When all is said and done, common sense reigns supreme: you simply don’t institutionalize telling kids how not to do something the best way you can do something.
But the proper level of government for educating kids about alcohol and instilling values about how to properly use it or use it at all falls to government and not parents?
I knew your mind would be racing for contradictions!!
But, alas, there is no contradicition here…because there is no parallel. We still teach kids to be temperate at home.
That we have drunk driving laws or alcohol-related regulations is related to public saftey issues that seem to require some sort of “punishment” for bad decision-making…and I’m sure you’re not arguing that we should do the same for unwed teenage mothers and their promiscuous dates.
Some contradictions for you, Paul:
1. Hunter’s Safety
2. Concealed Weapons Classes
3. Driver’s Ed
4. Financial Ed
5. Parenting Classes
6. ATV Safety
7. Wood Shop
8. Automotive Repair Classes
Granted, not all of these courses are taught via public education, but all are “institutionalized” via state and federal funding/regulation, and there is no “punishment” structure for knowing how to repair my own vehicle (nor did it encourage me to be the owner of more than one vehicle). Did wood shop make me a professional woodworker? Hardly. Did it teach me how to not cut my finger off in a table saw? Yes. And anyone willing to argue that Hunter’s Safety courses increase the number of people out there randomly shooting at things is a loonie.
Also, I feel obligated to point out your argument here borders on pure ideology, unless you can supply me with an example of how institutionalized instruction of “sexual safety” directly overrides or even serves to undermine “teaching temperance at home.”
My dad taught me to not shoot myself in the face. Gun safety courses taught me how to effectively maintain and care for the gun I would never point at my own face.
Paul,
How does common sense rule when most parents do not have any?
Most of these parents out there are stoopit!
I see no reason why not to fund a VOLUNTARY sex-ed class. If parents do not want their kids involved, great! The rest should have it available. For the relgious right to try and kill off sex-ed says more of their Wizard of Oz Do Not Look At That Man Behind The Curtain mentality then to their ability see that sex education in school saves lives and stops careless pregnancies.
Think of it this way Paul: Sex-ed kids that have protected sex most likely won’t have an unwanted pregnancy that results in either a: abortion, b: a ward of the state, or c: a drop out teen-mom.
I think that most of these options are much worse than a couple of teenagers fooling around because of strong biological urges that parents have yet to find an effective way to really reign in. Who knows, it may even bring STDs rates down, which is usually considered a public health concern.
Adding to NoLo Tyson’s thoughts, if we reduced a/b/c, the money saved would greatly outweigh the costs of “institutionalizing” such education. Combine that with Paul’s idea of parents “teaching temperance at home” and you’ve possibly got a winning solution, as opposed to the self-delusion required to think that abstinence only education has gotten us anywhere productive.
Very good! We’re giving the people (the parents) the say here.
Or, should we force the ignorant parents to “do what’s right” since Big Brother knows best and knows all? Is that “For the People?
Or, “we” could always spread lies and propaganda until the people are so brainwashed that they “want” what Big Brother knows is best for them and beg for it?