Message 13 of 117 (639778) 11-03-2011 7:45 PM

Reply to: Message 11 by Jon 11-03-2011 6:51 PM

So you didn't notice that the bill legislates providing bogus mis-information to kids?

quote:

---

The new GOP-backed legislation would not ban teachers from discussing contraceptives, but would demand they stress abstaining from sex the only reliable way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

---

Apparently the idea is to provide kids a booby-man that won't serve them as adults in the hopes that they won't have sex as teens. What would a tenth grader think if he/she were taught this info and then observed that their parents were using contraceptives to avoid unwanted pregnancies?

Kids have plenty of information at their disposal that will let them know that there are contraceptives that work pretty darn well at preventing pregnancy and even STDs when used properly. Wouldn't the requirement to teach a lie be counter-productive? Isn't teaching bogus nonsense going to undercut your confidence in the rest of the stuff you are being taught?

Message 23 of 117 (639817) 11-04-2011 8:43 AM

Reply to: Message 22 by Jon 11-04-2011 8:07 AM

Abstaining is more effective, yes.

What you've said would be the truth, but teaching that abstinence is the only effective means would not be teaching the truth.

In fact, all that would be necessary to accomplish what you are suggesting is to teach that all contraceptive methods have failure rates. I would also suggest that attempts by teens to practice abstinence also have failure rates.

You commented that you did not see any problems based on the post about the article, so it is fair to criticize your statement on that basis.

Otherwise, what was the point of your saying anything at all, if you did not form your opinion based on what was posted and you have not read the article.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Message 28 of 117 (639858) 11-04-2011 1:37 PM

Reply to: Message 26 by Jon 11-04-2011 1:23 PM

That's the existing law Jon passed by Dems, and not the current bill under discussion here. I agree the that current law seems okay.

Here is the language from the article that describes the bill we are talking about. (Emphasis added by me.)

quote:

---

The new GOP-backed legislation would not ban teachers from discussing contraceptives, but would demand they stress abstaining from sex the only reliable way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

---

Message 35 of 117 (639883) 11-04-2011 3:12 PM

Reply to: Message 32 by Jon 11-04-2011 2:02 PM

The article states no such thing. The article states that the teaching of contraceptive methods is not prohibited. And other sources say that the law would leave no requirement to teach contraception in any way.

Message 43 of 117 (639913) 11-04-2011 8:15 PM

Reply to: Message 37 by Jon 11-04-2011 5:27 PM

You are doing a fine job of reading the current law.

But you are making the unwarranted assumption that the bill leaves the old law intact. At least according to the article and according to other reporting I've read, the bill does away with the original requirement to teach contraception. Under the Republican bill, teaching abstinence only would be just fine.

Message 51 of 117 (639930) 11-04-2011 11:17 PM

Reply to: Message 49 by Jon 11-04-2011 9:35 PM

No, you don't read that. Let me suggest that you are unrealistically trusting of Wisconsin's Senate Republicans.

The link below is to the text of the bill, SB237.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/.../related/proposals/sb237

The language of the legislation is preceded by a summary of what the bill would accomplish if enacted. Note in particular the description of the provisions of current law including curriculum item 6, required by current law, which I quote below:

quote:

---

6) the health benefits, side effects, and proper use of
contraceptives and barrier methods approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent pregnancy and barrier methods approved by the FDA to prevent sexually transmitted infections;

---

What does the bill claim to do with item 6?

quote:

---

This bill recommends, rather than requires, instructional topics for a school board that elects to provide an instructional program and restructures the recommended curriculum. The bill eliminates from the current law curriculum items 3 and 6, above, but retains discussion of pregnancy, parenting, and gender
stereotypes in other portions of the recommended curriculum.

---

Now what does the bill mandate?

quote:

---

The bill requires a school board that offers an instructional program to do all of the following in the same course and during the same year: 1) present abstinence as the preferred choice of behavior for unmarried pupils; 2) emphasize that abstinence is the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and avoid sexually transmitted infections; 3) provide instruction in parental responsibility and the socioeconomic benefits of marriage

---

Yep. The bill allows a curriculum that does not include FDA approved contraceptives, but that does emphasize abstinence as the only reliable method to prevent pregnancy and avoid sexually transmitted infections.

Message 52 of 117 (639931) 11-04-2011 11:26 PM

Reply to: Message 47 by hooah212002 11-04-2011 8:51 PM

Yes, there is. The secular purpose is reducing the birth of out of wedlock children that have a high probability of needing economic support by the state.

The fact that practicing abstinence is not wholly effective does not prevent it from being a secular purpose.

Message 54 of 117 (639934) 11-05-2011 12:07 AM

Reply to: Message 53 by hooah212002 11-04-2011 11:34 PM

Teens and pre-teens. K-12. Adults can smoke, drink, and have sex responsibly. The risk that kids will goof up is higher.

Generally speaking, the SC has invalidated laws regulating sex and birth control under the 4th Amendment and not under the 1st amendment.

That's not what you asked. I think I could cobble up a constitutionally valid purpose if I wanted, but it is not unnecessary to do so. The bill does not mandate abstinence only education. It just does not criminalize such a program. The only requirement is that lies about abstinence be a part of every sex education program.

Message 58 of 117 (639938) 11-05-2011 12:51 AM

Reply to: Message 49 by Jon 11-04-2011 9:35 PM

If the bill is enacted, then the statute will no longer makes any specific mention of any FDA contraceptive methods. So if you elect to teach the use of condoms in WI, then you risk being prosecuted by this @%!# loose cannon.

http://abovethelaw.com/...-says-sex-ed-is-sexual-assault-101

quote:

---

Wisconsin District Attorney Says Sex Ed is Sexual Assault 101
By KASHMIR HILL

Put those condoms and bananas away, teachers. Wisconsin district attorney Scott Southworth says that sex ed showing minors how to use contraception is “sexual assault ed,” and that teachers who participate are subject to criminal liability.

---

Message 59 of 117 (639940) 11-05-2011 1:07 AM

Reply to: Message 55 by hooah212002 11-05-2011 12:14 AM

quote:

---

Your reasoning was about a burden on society. Adults having children out of wedlock would also be a burden on society.

---

I addressed this. We don't supervise adults in the same way we supervise children. Unless you are suggesting that we force adults to go to sex education classes, I'm not sure what your point is about adults. Having children out of wedlock is a burden, so we teach everybody not to do it when they are in school. What contradiction do you see?

quote:

---

However, in light of this bill, one can only wonder WHY this is an issue? If it is not mandatory to teach abstinence only, why is the issue a concern?

---

Because despite passing Constitutional muster, the bill is bad policy that will cause more kids to end up with possibly incurable diseases and/or pregnant.

quote:

---

Surely sex education teachers could, along with teaching contraceptive methods, tell children "the only truly effective way to NOT have unwanted pregnancies or get STD's is to NOT have sex"

---

What about the fact that the statement is not true, and is likely to result in more teens having unsafe sex? What about the fact that every Senator knew the likely result when they were voting on the bill? I know these points have been made here by multiple posters.

Nobody is claiming that there is such a purpose. Teaching abstinence is constitutional. Teaching nothing is constitutional, and there is no constitutional right to have contraception taught. So teaching, and even lying about abstinence is constitutional.

Message 61 of 117 (639942) 11-05-2011 1:54 AM

Reply to: Message 60 by hooah212002 11-05-2011 1:24 AM

No it is not. Of course we all know where babies come from.

But practicing abstinence often turns out to be a difficult and many kids fail the attempt to be chaste. Crashfrog has done an excellent job of explaining the point to Jon. I'd suggest reviewing that discussion.

Let's just say that you cannot cure homelessness by telling people to just own a house.

I don't think you've come close to making this argument.

Message 68 of 117 (640115) 11-07-2011 11:19 AM

Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog 11-07-2011 11:07 AM

Good grief dude. Take your foot off the guy's neck. He said he was sorry! Let him back up.

Message 69 of 117 (640134) 11-07-2011 2:29 PM

Reply to: Message 62 by hooah212002 11-05-2011 2:03 AM

In my opinion, the argument you are trying to use will not work. There is nothing unconstitutional about teaching abstinence. If a teacher taught abstinence and never mentioned anything else there would be no constitutional issue.

If there is a constitutional issue at all, it would have to involve the requirement to rebut advice regarding use FDA approved contraceptives with religiously based rationale. But anyone can come up with something that would not be a problem.

Using the "abstinence never fails" logic is not unconstitutional, it's just stupid. And reasons like, "The legislature does not feel that kids are not emotionally ready for relationships that include sex" would probably would pass muster.

One dimension of the Dover trial is that there was plenty of evidence available to show that the "scientific" reasons for teaching ID offered by the defendants were not the real ones. Absent that evidence, who knows how things would have turned out.

Message 83 of 117 (640174) 11-07-2011 7:34 PM

Reply to: Message 70 by hooah212002 11-07-2011 3:07 PM

Yeah, my bad. I read your question, but I translated it to, is there a constitutionally valid reason that would pass the muster with the Supreme Court which presently includes Clarence Thomas who will accept any pretext offered, and Scalia who thinks the Establishment Clause bars only establishing a particular religious sect as the state church.

Message 100 of 117 (640686) 11-11-2011 6:55 PM

Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog 11-11-2011 6:41 PM

I find that a pretty ungracious, and demonstrably false Veterans' day sentiment. Our service men have done their part to defend our freedom, at great personal sacrifice, even if you discount every single fighting action they've been involved in since WWII.

I understand your opinion of our mistaken policies, and I even agree with much of it. But you go a little too far here.