This is an absolute joke. This is political pandering at its worst. Let me share why.
I received plenty of abstinence-only sex education at home and at school during seminary. This is the proper place for moral instruction. I can tell you that in high school (and Finn can vouch for this), ALL of my non-LDS friends were sexually active in one way or another and half of my LDS friends were sexually active. I think nationwide estimates put the number around 50-60% of all teenagers coming out of high school have had a sexual encounter.
Most of my friends practiced the "pull-out" form of contraception. This is the method of pulling out just prior to ejaculation to avoid sending sperm into the vagina. All of them thought they could never get a girl pregnant this way, but little did they know that there are sperm in the pre-ejaculate, and all of them were playing with fire every time they had sex. One of my LDS friends later told me he couldn't believe how naive he had been, and he counted himself very lucky he wasn't a teen father.
I heard other rumors in high school about contraception that were not true. Some girls thought if you douched with Coca-cola after having intercourse, that would destroy the sperm. Some of my friends thought if you had sex in a hot tub, the girl could not get pregnant. Many of them thought it impossible to get pregnant the first time they ever had sex. The list goes on and on.
We live in a real world. Obviously, I and all of you believe in abstinence-only before marriage. But what about after marriage? Many of us have used various forms of contraception, the likes of which I had no idea about until we had a two hour lecture on it from Andy Anderson's wife in physiology at Utah State. Did I instantly think that I had just been taught about how to away with sex like some Utah legislators are claiming and go out and start banging every girl I saw? No.
The current policy in Utah has parents sign a permission slip that allows the school to instruct the students about various forms of contraception, sexually-transmitted diseases, and other sex-related material. If you choose to withhold your child from these courses, you are absolutely permitted to do that, and currently about 10% of Utah parents do. That means 90% of Utah parents choose to have their children attend these courses to learn about these things.
What I really wanted to be able to do was give the Utah lawmakers a multiple choice test covering the material of sex-education and see if the could even pass. My guess is that most would get about half the answers right. As a parent, I want my children to have sex education at school and then be able to talk to them about it and answer any additional questions they might have.
As soon as the bill passed, thousands of calls were put into the governor's office, a petition gaining tens of thousands of signatures (including mine and most the students in my medical class), emails and letters have all been sent to prod the governor to veto the bill. On an LDS church owned news website, the following poll was conducted:
I know this is a small sample size but for 80% of likely conservative readers to think Gov. Herbert should veto this bill is significant.
However, Governor Herbert obviously doesn't care what the people of Utah think:
"Herbert was not available for comment Friday, but a spokeswoman said the governor's office has received thousands of calls, emails and letters regarding HB363. Herbert has said that he will not be swayed by mass email campaigns and would make a decision based on what is the best policy for the state of Utah."
I know some of you may argue that it's no place for the government to be teaching your children about sex education. I would argue that a public education should be correcting myths and providing correct information about contraception and including an element of abstinence being the best policy. Information and knowledge is not something to be feared but embraced. If Governor Herbert decides politics is more important than the health of teenagers, he will lose my vote and support come next election.
Just a conclusion from a national study done on abstinence-only sex education programs:
"This assessment of the impact of formal sex education programs on teen sexual health using nationally representative data found that abstinence-only programs had no significant effect in delaying the initiation of sexual activity or in reducing the risk for teen pregnancy and STDs. In contrast, comprehensive sex education programs were significantly associated with reduced risk of teen pregnancy, whether compared with no sex education or with abstinence-only sex education, and were marginally associated with decreased likelihood of a teen becoming sexually active compared with no sex education."
I don't understand how this bill is political pandering if 90% of Utah parents have no problems with their kids going through sex ed classes and 80% want Herbert to veto the bill. If it is, that's an awfully small group to be pandering to.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, this is a dumb law, and I'm surprised it even passed in the legislature. My parents were fine with me learning about sex in school, but were also careful to supplement what I learned with their perspective and with necessary moral instruction. The same thing with the LDS church. In fact, learning about all the nasty yet real STD possibilities (in school) that come with a promiscuous lifestyle made abstinence that much more appealing in my mind.
You're right to describe pre-marital sex as "playing with fire." It reminded me of a Jeffrey R. Holland quote: "A youth boiling with hormones will wonder why he should not give full freedom to his sexual desires; and if he is unchecked by morals, customs, or laws, he may ruin his life before he matures sufficiently to understand that sex is a river of fire that must be banked and restrained by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group."
I say political pandering because it appeals to the most conservative voters and they are the ones who more often show up to The caucus.
ReplyDeleteAs one Logan resident mentioned "this is red meat to throw to the caucus goers.
One of the house democracys mentioned that other lawmakers who voted for the bill told him in private thy opposed the bill but could not vote no because of the political damage it would do to their reelection campaigns.
Just as an update, Governor Herbert vetoed the bill today and rightfully so. The "opt-out" rate was about 3%, meaning 3% of parents decided to pull their children out of this education.
ReplyDeleteRarely when i say "lol" am I ACTUALLY laughing-out-loud, but when I read about the "pullout" method...holy cow for some reason it just made me giggle. I almost even said "rotfl," but I didn't want anyone to think I was "Really Oppressing True Freedom & Liberty" like Jon Stewart imagined in a recent Daily Show Episode... (OK not really, I just got such a kick out of it that I couldn't resist) ... :)
ReplyDeleteSorry if this post seems random, I figured y'all could use a relief from my standard ramblings lol
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo on a more serious note, the real problem I have with this whole thing isn't so much about sex per-se as it is about the naive notion where parents think they can completely shelter their kids from every single bad thing in the world.
ReplyDeleteThe simple truth of the matter is that kids tend to get at least some degree of exposure to sex even BEFORE any formal sex-ed is even offered in school!! So what's frustrating to me is where you have parents refusing to sign the slips and opting out with some psycho utopian notion that their kids won't even KNOW about sex at all until the parents snap their fingers and decide that their kids are ready... In reality, at a certain point procrastinating sex-ed becomes detrimental, and I think that point is usually past before schools are sending kids home permission slips...
For example, there's a 12-year-old kid I know whose parents won't let him watch ANY PG-13 movies if there's ANY kind of "sexual content" on the description. Although on its face that might seem like responsible parenting (you be the judge), I sense this naivete' at the heart of it where they feel like if they make sure he grows up watching mainly PG Disney movies, then he won't even be inclined to think about sex until he's totally grown up & ready to start a family. From what I know about this kid, that already isn't the case, but that stems more from natural, innocent curiosity than obsession with sex. So basically at this point TRYING to keep him in some bizarre sort of sex-free bubble does more harm than good because it merely ensures he will remain confused about what he does know and all the more curious about learning more!! To quote a Seinfeld episode, "that's not gonna be good for ANYONE!" lol
This kind of thing is also why I liked Occupy's point about the innate dissuasiveness of a purely informative, responsible sex-ed course compared to the other exposure we all encounter from random friends or acquaintances, like showing off Playboys after school, your stereotypical locker room bragging, etc.
If you ask me, though, if you REALLY want to scare off teens from having frivolous sex... all you have to do is show them videos of childbirth!! lol