Archive for Friday, February 3, 2006
Proposal would require age-appropriate sex ed, emphasize abstinence
February 3, 2006
Advertisement
Topeka — Free State High School students Laura Kelly and Ashleigh Coleman visited the Capitol on Thursday to support legislation that would emphasize the benefits of abstinence and provide information about preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
"We feel it is important for students to have factual information about sex," said Kelly, a senior. "We want a program based on scientific facts."
Coleman agreed. "Many people don't seek out the truth," she said. "People need to have medically accurate information."
The two students were part of a coalition made up of education, health, religious and civic groups supporting the Abstinence Plus Education Act that was filed in the Legislature.
The bill would require schools to provide age-appropriate human sexuality programs taught by trained instructors.
The program would emphasize sexual abstinence but also inform students about sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
To reduce teenage pregnancy and the spread of STDs "we must make sex education a long-term part of our goal," said Angie Blair, a Lawrence school nurse.
"Kids want to know and need to know how to protect themselves," she said.
The coalition also said the state needed the opt-out policy, which gives parents the option of removing their children from sex education classes.
Some members of the Kansas State Board of Education have supported what is called an opt-in policy, which would require a permission slip from parents for the student to take sex education.
But experts on sex education say opt-in would result in fewer students getting information they need simply because their parents were too busy to sign a permission slip.
The hang-up over opt-out versus opt-in has bottled up sex education standards at the state education board for several months.
This new bill, supporters said, would reinstate guidelines on comprehensive sex education on a statewide level.
Sen. Kay O'Connor, R-Olathe, however, said she would prefer the opt-in method. "I think parents need to be a little more involved," she said.
She said the proposed bill "would be a powerless piece of legislation" if the education board ever adopts the sex education standards before it.
But coalition members, which include the Douglas County AIDS Project and Kansas University Students for Reproductive Choice, said the legislation was needed to ensure that students get accurate information about sex.
"Sex education is not something to be ashamed of," said Laura Adams, a parent form Fairway. "It shows our children that we value their health, their safety and their future."
More like this
- Board OKs opt-in for sex ed 39 comments / March 16, 2006
- Informed decisions February 24, 2006
- Abstinence-based plan for sex education is returning 171 comments / June 14, 2006
- State Board of Education votes for opt-in sex education policy 62 comments / March 15, 2006
- Lawrence sex-ed policy likely to stay as opt-out 25 comments / March 18, 2006
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 19 comments
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009 · 23 comments
- On the street: Will you miss ‘The Oprah Winfrey’ show? November 21, 2009 · 10 comments
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 64 comments
- Researcher: Writing proves Shroud of Turin is real November 21, 2009 · 9 comments
- Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009 · 8 comments
- Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban November 20, 2009 · 28 comments
- Nothing to lose: Reeling KU huge underdog for a change November 21, 2009 · 12 comments
- United Way about $800,000 short of $1.8 million campaign goal November 20, 2009 · 19 comments
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 158 comments
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009
- Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009
- CLARENCE E. RINKE OBITUARY October 19, 1999
- On target November 21, 2009
- Sexual healing: Dennis Dailey coaches couples with tough love at his intimacy workshop November 20, 2009
- Researcher: Writing proves Shroud of Turin is real November 21, 2009
- Not-so-gentle reign November 19, 2009
- 40 years ago: Construction begins on Meadowlark addition November 21, 2009
- Chiefs honor ex-left offensive tackle Roaf December 15, 2008
- Commission votes against including gender identity in Lawrence's anti-discrimination policy November 19, 2009
3 February 2006
at 7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
Abstinence, while the best thing, does not work. The lack of teaching of other issues in sex ed actually causes activity to work. Basically boiling down to “Here's how it's done, now don't do it”.
Idiots in the white house, spying on my phone, to find out my views on something trivial… Par for the course.
3 February 2006
at 11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mefirst (Anonymous) says…
Again, more policy dictated by religious fanaticism. Anyone with a brain would argue that abstinence is the best choice, but anyone with a brain also understands that withholding information is wrong and dangerous. There have been so many advances in prevention of STDs and with birth control, to not share that info with kids (at an appropriate age…8th grade and up) is irresponsible and shameful.
3 February 2006
at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bettie (Anonymous) says…
actually, the bill does not require or encourage any withholding of information. its language is taken directly from the state board of education guidelines that have been in place since 1987. they expired last year and the boe has done nothing to replace them. (i don't know that i would want this particular boe replacing them, anyway.)
since 1987, schools have been able to decide what works for them, be that a comprehensive sex ed program or something else. (remember, a comprehensive sex ed program starts with talking about the benefits of abstinence, but then goes on to talk about everything else - hence the name “abstinence plus”).
what this bill does is require that each school has a human sexuality education program that is medically-accurate and age-appropriate. it must emphasize the benefits of abstinence and include information about stds and hiv. within those parameters, it's up to the schools what they teach. so this is really a bill that preserves local control over sexuality education curricula.
just wanted to clear the air on this. i know how scary the a-word is, but this isn't an “abstinence-only” bill. please note that the organizations mentioned above that support it.
3 February 2006
at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
juliopac (Anonymous) says…
Doesn't mention anything about birth control though does it?
3 February 2006
at 6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bettie (Anonymous) says…
remember for a moment that this is the same legislature that passed by a 2/3 majority a ban on gay marriage. do you think they would pass anything that required teaching of kids about birth control?
of course that would be ideal, but our legislature is far from ideal.
3 February 2006
at 6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bettie (Anonymous) says…
maybe what i should have said was:
you take what you can get.
4 February 2006
at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bettie (Anonymous) says…
whoa. someone please tell me that parkay is being sarcastic. please.
4 February 2006
at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bettie (Anonymous) says…
if anyone's interested in reading the actual text of the bill, here's a link (sorry, i don't know how to post it right, so you'll have to copy and paste.)
http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/20…
you'll see that it neither encourages nor discourages the teaching of birth control methods. this establishes neither “condom classes” nor “abstinence-only” classes. it merely requires that there is a sexuality education class of some sort. curricula is determined by the local school boards.