Friday, March 29, 2024

Colorado Sex Ed Bill Would Erode Parental Rights, Local Control

There is a comprehensivesex education bill under consideration in the Colorado House of Representativesthat would significantly erode the rights of parents in the state.

HB 19-1032,sponsored by State Representative Susan Lontine (D-Denver), State Senator NancyTodd (D-Aurora), and State Senator Don Coram (R-Montrose), would prohibitschools that teach human sexuality from providing abstinence-only sex educationor teach gender norms.

The bill also prohibitsschools from using federal funds that require schools to teach abstinence-onlysex education and would also prevent the State Board of Education from grantingany exceptions even to charter schools which have a greater amount of autonomy.

The bill’s authors intendfor the bill to be a clarification to human sexuality education law passed in2013.

The bill “clarifies contentrequirements for public schools that offer comprehensive human sexualityeducation and prohibits instruction from explicitly or implicitly teaching orendorsing religious ideology or sectarian tenets or doctrines, usingshame-based or stigmatizing language or instructional tools, employing gendernorms or gender stereotypes, or excluding the relational or sexual experiencesof lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender individuals.”

Also, the bill does not require schools that provide human sexuality instruction to discuss pregnancy outcome options, but if they do, they are expected to include abortion, adoption, and parenting as options.

The bill provides for $1million in the state’s budget for the implementation of comprehensive humansexuality education specifically targeting rural school districts and schoolddistricts that do not yet provide that instruction.

There are four primary problems with this bill:

1. Comprehensive sexeducation does not work.

The American College of Pediatricians released an updated statement on School-Based Sex Education in the UnitedStates last fall that says comprehensive sex education (CSE) in schools hasbeen a failure.

They say CSE programs inAmerica’sschools have failed to demonstrate long-term effectiveness in delaying sexualactivity or increasing long-term condom and contraceptive use among sexuallyactive youth.

The statement authored by Stan Weed, Ph.D.; Irene Erikson, Ph.D.; Russell Gombosi, MD; and Michelle Cretella, MD notes the alarming rise in sexually transmitted diseases based on data released in 2018 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

Nearly 2.3 million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis were diagnosed in the United States in 2017, exceeding the previous year’s record high by over 200,000 cases. Comparing data from 2013 to that from 2017, the CDC found chlamydia remained the most common STD, and that 45 percent of the over 1.7 million cases were among 15- to 24-year-old females. Gonorrhea has risen 67 percent over that same time period, and the number of strains resistant to antibiotics is growing rapidly. Similarly, the diagnosis of primary and secondary syphilis, which are the most infectious stages of the disease, increased 76 percent. Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) made up almost 70 percent of those cases.

They note one of thereasons CSE fails is due to the fact it doesn’t target students alreadyinvolved in risky behavior. They write:

The school-based SRR (CSE) model targets the general teen population, rather than focusing on an individual intervention for those who are actually engaged in the risk behavior. This is a significant difference from the typical risk reduction model. The sexual risk reduction approach should focus on adolescents in school who are already sexually active, but instead is applied to the broader teen population. This sends the false message that “everyone is doing it”, which has the negative effect of normalizing teen sex as an expected standard for all students.

They also note, “Theschool-based SRR (CSE) model does not seek to move individuals who are engagedin sexual activity toward a renewed risk avoidance (abstinent) behavioralchoice, as is true for other risk behavior programs.”

2. It places LGBTideology ahead of biology.

The bill requires schoolsto teach ideology over empirical biological science. There is no cleardefinition of what qualifies as “shame-based” language or “gender stereotypes.” The bill prohibitsnormal biology and compels transgender ideology.

HB 19-1032 claims to exclude endorsing a particular religious tenet. That is not the case, as the requirement to coercively include “the relational or sexual experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender individuals” compels public schools to teach LGBT ideology.

The language found in this bill, as well as within SOGI laws nationwide, is used to ban disagreement or discussion on LGBT issues.

This bill effectively codifies SOGI language into the state’s human sexuality education program.

3. It offers weakparental opt-out and notification provisions.

HB 19-1032 does offer aparental opt-out. It states that parents must provide to the school, inwriting, their intent to not to have their student participate.

It should offer an opt-infeature instead.

The bill requires schools to notify parents with a “detailed, substantive outline of the topics and materials to be presented during human sexuality instruction.”

However, it is made clear that nothing within the bill requires written notification on “gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, or healthy relationships” if it happens outside of human sexuality instruction.

4. It erodes localcontrol.

Public school districts have elected school boards and charter schools have boards of directors whose task it is to direct and approve of curriculum that their schools use.

Those are the people whoare closest to the students and the most accountable to parents, and HB 19-1032takes that decision out of their hands and says the state and its educrats knowbest.

It also prohibits the state board of education, with whom the Colorado Constitution vests the “general supervision of the public schools of the state,” from providing waivers and exemptions.

The Colorado Constitution also states that local school boards “shall have control of instruction in the public schools of their respective districts.”

HB 19-1032 is an unconstitutional attempt by the state to take control of instruction.

More From The Pulse