March 15, 2007

Connect the dots on sex education bill and see the full picture
By State Representative Jim McCune, 2nd Legislative District

The sponsors of Senate Bill 5297 and House Bill 1855 want their bills to be known as the “Healthy Youth Act.” Each has been referred to by legislators as the “medically accurate sex education bill,” using words from the Senate bill title, but this is just another example of what’s known in Olympia as “bill-title politics.” That’s when a noble-sounding title is put on a bill to hide the agenda behind it.

To me, it would be more accurate to call this legislation something like the “teach fourth-graders about ‘gender expression’ and ‘sexual orientation identity’ bill.” And it could be in our schools next school year. Sound hard to believe? Not if you connect the dots.

Start with the bill’s second section, paying special attention to the final sentence (emphasis and comments added):

By September 1, 2008, every public school that offers sexual health education must assure (i.e., mandate) that sexual health education is medically and scientifically accurate, age-appropriate (starting in at least the 4th grade) , appropriate for students regardless of gender, race, disability status, or sexual orientation (refers to homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, trans-gender, intersex, etc.) and includes information about abstinence and other methods of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

All sexual health information, instruction, and materials must be medically and scientifically accurate. Abstinence may not be taught to the exclusion of other materials and instruction on contraceptives and disease prevention. Every public school that offers comprehensive sexual health education or abstinence education shall offer both abstinence education and comprehensive sexual health programs…Sexual health education must be consistent with the January 2005 guidelines for sexual health information and disease prevention developed by the Department of Health and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

That last line shows why SB 5297 and HB 1855 are cleverly written bills – they only refer to the 2005 guidelines, without repeating them. So unless you take the initiative to read the guidelines (click here to see them) you have no way of knowing how far-ranging they are.

Here are some particularly disturbing parts of the bill and the “guidelines”:
The introduction to the guidelines describes them as “a framework for medically and scientifically accurate sex education.” Farther along, “sex education” is defined as referring “both to teaching about sexuality and to the lifelong process of learning about sexuality.”

Here’s another part I found eye-opening: The guidelines go on to define “sexuality” as “a significant aspect of a person’s life consisting of many interrelated factors including but not limited to sexual anatomy, physiology, growth and development; gender, gender identity and gender role/expression; sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity; sexual behaviors and lifestyles; sexual beliefs, values and attitudes; body image and self-esteem, sexual health; sexual [thoughts and feelings]; relationship to others; [and] life experiences.” Wow.

Also, this bill would require the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Department of Health to develop a list of sexual health education courses consistent with the 2005 guidelines. That list would have to be updated at least annually and be made available on the OSPI and DOH websites. Annual updates? Without parents being able to know what’s coming until the updates arrive, I can just imagine where that could lead.

What concerns me most about SB 5297 and HB 1855 are their disregard for the rights of parents to raise their kids as they see fit. Giving mandates to our public schools to make sure their sex education programs are consistent with the January 2005 guidelines would lock them into teaching a definition of sexuality that will go far beyond what many parents want.

Would it be a problem if your child’s school covers the topic of “sexual behaviors and lifestyles” sooner than you’d planned to get to it at home?

I’m also concerned about what this legislation would mean for local control of our schools, and to parents who want to have input. Today those 2005 guidelines are voluntary. But SB 5297 and HB 1855 are full of absolute words like “shall” and “must.” I wonder if our district’s school boards and parents would have any latitude at all in defining the scope of sex education courses.

What are the odds either bill could become law? A House-sponsored version easily passed the House last year – and it upheld the emphasis on abstinence education, which the 2007 bills do not. The House version cleared one Senate committee last year but not a second.

I suspect HB 1855 has been sidelined in favor of the Senate version, because that’s the measure which is moving forward this year. It passed in the Senate early last week, in contrast to last year. SB 5297 received a hearing Friday before the House Health Care and Wellness Committee and already is scheduled for a vote by that committee March 21.

There’s one part about both bills I like: the second sentence in the opening section, which states “the primary responsibility for sexual health education is with parents and guardians.” It’s just very disappointing that SB 5297 and HB 1885 trample the rights of parents from that point on.

Children are very easily influenced. They are like sponges and absorb everything they are taught. I want every citizen to know what is coming, and be able to make an informed decision about what their children hear and absorb.

(Rep. Jim McCune, R-Graham, is serving his second term from the 2nd Legislative District, which spans eastern Pierce and northeast Thurston counties.)

 

# # #