by Peter Grady –
While the state was focusing on a series of gun control bills working their way through the legislature, a bill was quietly passed that requires school districts that take state money to reach out to the “gay” community for help in designing their sex education curriculum.
The legislature recently passed HB 1081. While currently school districts are allowed to teach abstinence only sex education the bill mandates districts to adopt what it calls a comprehensive sex education program if they receive any state or federal grants for sexuality programs. At a time when many school districts are starved for funding, they may find the temptation to take the state funding hard to resist.
As part of the bill parents are allowed to opt out of the program, however an attempt to make the requirement an opt in, meaning parents would specifically have to give permission for their children to attend the sexuality programs was defeated by Democrats in the legislature.
The bill states that the comprehensive sex education program must teach subject matter that is “culturally sensitive,” which it says included reaching out to the LGBT community for input in the various types of sexual activities and other subjects to address.
It also states that they want districts to teach by using ‘positive youth development” which emphasizes the positive attributes of young people and is culturally sensitive. Additionally, the education standards include instructing students on how to avoid making assumptions about a person’s sexual intentions based on their appearance. In other words, a child would be taught not to assume a person wearing a dress is a girl, but to think the person could be whatever sex they felt like at the moment.
A report by the Heritage Foundation found that while comprehensive sex education curriculum is touted as a middle ground between abstinence only and “safe sex” programs, the majority of curricula devotes only 4.7 percent of the page content to abstinence and zero percent to healthy relationships and the benefits of marriage. By comparison, abstinence only programs devote 17.4 percent to the same subject with 53.7 percent on abstinence related material.
The comprehensive sex education program required in the law flies in the face of what parents prefer. A 2003 Zogby poll showed that 79 percent of parents want their teens to be taught to refrain from sexual activity until marriage or at least an adult relationship leading to marriage. Additionally, 91 percent of parents want teens taught that “the best choice is for sexual intercourse to be linked to love, intimacy and commitment.”
By contrast, only 2 percent of parents believe abstinence is not important and only 7 percent believe teaching about contraception should receive more emphasis than teaching about abstinence.
This suggests that similar to the gun control bills where the vast majority of state residents testified against gun control, democratic lawmaker have once again ignored the will of the people by passing a law mandating a curriculum that parents are overwhelmingly opposed to.
While the majority of parents are opposed to the ideas conveyed in the comprehensive sex education programs, the law is supported by Planned Parenthood, a eugenicist founded organization that is the nation’s largest abortion provider.
Recently an official with Planned Parenthood lobbied for the right for a doctor and mother to kill a newborn who was born alive after surviving an abortion.
The comments came from Alisa LaPoit Snow, who was testifying at a recent Florida legislative hearing. During the questioning, Snow was repeatedly asked what Planned Parenthood wanted to happen to a baby who was born alive and survived a botched abortion.
“So, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
Snow responded by saying, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
The statement echoes the sentiments of Barack Obama, who while a member of the Illinois legislature opposed a bill that would have mandated medical care for a baby who survived an abortion. Obama’s reason for opposing medical care for the newborn was that it would “burden the original decision of the mother.”