FT 5-2: Responsible Sex Education Act of 2017

[DFL]

I sponsored this bill because I believe the children of Fremont deserve an accurate, informed, and positive education on a subject that affects every single Fremonter and Atlasia -- that of sex education. Abstinence-only sex education is counter-productive and harmful to our society, and studies have shown again and again that it only leads to misinformation, negative attitudes and behaviors towards sex, and higher rates of teen pregnancy as a result.

I believe it is our duty to ensure our children are taught and taught well on every subject, including those that may be uncomfortable for them or even ourselves.

(I understand the exact total of the funding cut or method of punishment may be unacceptable or a deal-breaker for some MPs. This number and idea for punishment were simply put in the text so we had a method of enforcement -- if another MP has better ideas on how to do this I'm all ears.)

[DFL]

1.) Does Section 3(g) mean all students must learn about gay sex techniques?

2.) What are the rules for parental opt-outs?

3.) What specifics will be taught to 4th graders?

"Gay sex techniques" is quite a pointed way to refer to that section of the curriculum.

All students will learn about LGBTQ relationships and will be taught about them just as if they were between straight male and female couples. Topics of safety will be introduced later in the curriculum that will apply to LGBTQ partners, but the idea of LGBTQ relationships and sexual activity will be taught in a way that normalizes it, educates on it positively, and helps to ensure that all of our children are well-educated, regardless of their identity.

I will draft a new section for opting-out to be added as an amendment.

In the FLASH program, 4th graders learn about puberty, positive image of themselves and others, communicating with their parents over these issues, and introductions to the reproductive system and ideas of sexual abuse to help awareness on the issue. The comprehensive sex education taught in Fremont will model this system.

[DFL]

While not a member of this honorable house, I would in general advise against allowing parents to "opt out" of required courses on behalf of their children. This is a discussion we had at-length when drafting the Education Reform Act earlier this year, and the general consensus then was that students enrolled in public school ought all be subject to the same requirements and standards — such, after all, is the idea behind public education. Perhaps for certain areas of the curriculum, there ought to be an exception made for religious objectors and the like, but I don't see why a Catholic ought be able to opt-out of the lecture on "LGBT acceptance" any more than a Quaker ought be able to opt-out of a history lesson on World War I. Requiring students to act against their religious beliefs (for example, requiring a Muslim student to paint a portrait of the Prophet Muhammad) is obviously entirely different, which is why I say it may be necessary to make an exception on certain issues; but in general, I don't think not wanting your children to know that condoms exist is a sufficient reason for them to be excused from regional curriculum requirements.

I entirely agree. When beginning to write the opt-out clause, I began leaning more towards an information packet to send to parents/guardians to clear up any misconceptions about the program. I feel strongly that all students should take part in a curriculum like this, but wanted to remain receptive to outside voices.

As of now, I will abstain from drafting an opt-out clause, but if desired can make a clause to inform parents about what exactly we'll be teaching.

[DFL]

I would oppose the bill if it has an opt-out clause. It's ridiculous that parents should be allowed to disallow their children from learning about normal, common parts of society.

There won't be one.

[DFL]

Aye.