Deseret News | Measure offers 2 sex-ed options

Reader comments
Measure offers 2 sex-ed options

Page:
1
2
Next >

Great Idea! | 6:32 p.m. June 17, 2009

What an excellent approach! Parents who want their kids to get the real facts about sex can finally do so, while parents who are protective can ensure that their kids don't hear anything at school that their parents don't like. Win-win.

Joe Moe | 7:00 p.m. June 17, 2009

While I liked this idea at first blush, I do wonder about how this would play out with the kids. What kind of dialog happens between the group of kids who have the more liberal class and those who have the regular one? What kind of stigma might develop, going both ways? Sexuality is a sensitive topic with adults, let alone children. And as much as we may wish to focus on the health aspects of this issue, it's obviously a sexual issue, too. There's no way to avoid it.

Anonymous | 7:22 p.m. June 17, 2009

When did education start meeting the needs of parents? I thought we were meeting the needs of the students. Parents can take their kids to church to have morality taught. It is our responsibility to teach children the facts about diseases that can kill or maim them. As a teacher and a parent I say - empower our students and wake up our parents to the reality of the world we live in. Like it or lump it - the Virgin Mary was an unwed mother.

Comments continue below

Sacred manner? | 7:31 p.m. June 17, 2009

"It should be handled in a sacred manner."

Why are people so afraid of education? The Eagle Forum is completely out of touch with daily reality.

janine | 7:38 p.m. June 17, 2009

Yeah that's very important to prevent STDs. A survey from CDC shows that there are more than 500,000 peple joined the std dating&support site positivefishes.com and the number are increasing by hundreds everyday. What amazing!

To: Anonymous | 8:34 p.m. June 17, 2009

It's comments like yours that me grateful for homeschooling.

And to Sacred Manner??, We aren't afraid of education. We would just like the information to be given in the context of our values.

Amy | 8:57 p.m. June 17, 2009

This is a common sense approach to the increase in STD's among Utah's youth. Parents still retain the choice over whether or not their child attends a class. But honestly, do you think the parents who prevent their kids from attending are going to teach kids about sex "in the context of [their] values?" I don't think they're going to teach their kids about it at all -- and those are the kids most at risk for early pregnancies and STD's.
Good luck to you.

Amy | 9:07 p.m. June 17, 2009

"But honestly, do you think the parents who prevent their kids from attending are going to teach kids about sex "in the context of [their] values?" I don't think they're going to teach their kids about it at all"

Why do you think that?

HappyHeathen | 9:33 p.m. June 17, 2009

Abstinence Only doesnt work. The numbers are in. Kids need the information that may be the difference between life and death. Why is there even an option to opt out? Knowledge never killed anyone. Lack of it just might.

The Numbers are in and they do | 9:49 p.m. June 17, 2009

Sorry. The numbers are in. Abstinence education does work. Do your homework. I'll put up some stats and some sources and let you be the judge.

Abstinence is the number one prevention above all others.

Sorry about that. Its true.

ds | 10:00 p.m. June 17, 2009

The statistics will be interesting. Which group will have a higher incidence of STD's and pregnancy.

keep 'em stupid | 10:12 p.m. June 17, 2009

The Numbers are in??? Maybe you need to provide these numbers, because everything I've seen shown abstinence doesn't work.

I agree with Anon 7:22, It's not the place of schools to teach "values" It's a schools job to teach... teach your children values at home.

Give children information and let *them* decide what they "value"... Shocking I know, but they may not have the same Political/ religious/ moral values as mom and dad, and denying them information is just the parents way of forcing them to conform.

Anonymous | 11:37 p.m. June 17, 2009

Sounds like a good idea...and I hope it passes and moves into other states.

Can we choose better math too? | 12:14 a.m. June 18, 2009

Utah is going to offer a choice in sex ed.

Is it too much to ask that Utah also offer a choice in math too? Can those of us who would like to see a return to the "old" days when math had more substance have a choice too?

Such as focusing on arithmetic basics in elementary, along with the problem solving that Singapore Math offers,

And in junior high and high school, a return to math that is up to the standards of the mid 1980's and prior before math was made more "relevant"?

Mark Lane | 12:48 a.m. June 18, 2009

Thank you, Rep. Lynn Hemingway for putting this bill up for vote. I hope this bill passes. It is a simple no cost solution to this need. It is important that the comprehensive sex ed course have the contraception and other materials integrated into the course and not just "stuck on" at the end of the regular abstinence course.

This is the solution I proposed on the 5/21/09 Deseret News article "Lawmaker debates sex ed with teens", and again on the 6/5/09 article "Sex education, math under scrutiny: Lawmakers to discuss controversial issue" comments. Parents are required to give consent to teach birth-control, and this makes it easy.

LarvaJune Christiansen | 4:13 a.m. June 18, 2009

I am horrified to think that Utah schools are endorsing Satanism. Two of the most dangerous things imaginable are "sex" and "education", and when you put them together, you are just asking for trouble.

Parental choice? | 4:36 a.m. June 18, 2009

When it comes down to the choices I'd bet it will be the students choice. But why can't they teach both in the same class? Children and students should not be engaged in a sexual revolution and practice their sexual desires. Children are responding to a natural state as their hormones kick in and should be taught to control them. Sex education should be focused on preventing sex among teenagers and the serious pitfalls of practicing it. Students are intimidated by sex and only understand that the desire is there but don't know how to control it. I don't think schools should be teaching children how to use and exploit there hormonal changes and desires. Providing sexual aids only promotes and endorses them to practice sex.

Wilf | 5:33 a.m. June 18, 2009

In European countries like France, Germany, Sweden, or Finland, sex education is given from the 4th or 5th grade on, appropriate to each age group, but very clear on the dangers of STDs and the use of contraceptives such as condoms. Sex is something that can be talked about openly, with due respect for values and norms.

Studies show that the average age of first sexual experience among teenagers, and the frequency afterwards, is hardly different in those European countries and in the U.S. (or rather earlier in the U.S.) But teenage pregnancy is about 8 times higher in the U.S. than in those European countries. Education makes all the difference. Not informing our young people is almost a crime.

Paul in MD | 6:27 a.m. June 18, 2009

Here in Maryland, sex ed is taught in several grades, once in middle school and once in high school. We have a choice to opt out, which our family has done. We've done it not to shelter our kids from the idea of contraception or its methods, but from some more objectionable material taught here.

At home, we teach our kids abstinence first, but we also teach them about contraception without showing them explicit photos and videos. We also teach them about alternative lifestyles without teaching them that those are perfectly acceptable and normal. That is a value judgment, I know, and one which not everyone here will agree with. But to me that crosses the line between giving kids information and teaching values.

So far, my kids have not experienced any backlash or stigma for taking the alternative classes, and my kids are very much in the minority.

Frankly, in this area our kids deal with gang violence, kids attacking teachers, knife fights at football games, etc, so which health class a kid takes doesn't really register on anyone's radar.

Why can't the parents | 6:34 a.m. June 18, 2009

teach their children about sex ed? Waiting till 7th grade is too late anyway. Let's not take out on the schools what should be taught in the home. Too many parents, both in Utah and out, are asleep at the wheel and just want the school system to teach their children everything. Being a parent is more than just providing the basic necessities. Come on parents! Step up and take charge!

Anonymous | 7:15 a.m. June 18, 2009

Rep. Eric Hutchings, R-Kearns, pointed out times are changing and teenagers should be educated. But abstinence should still be encouraged.

"We're in a whole new world," he said.

This actually made me laugh! thanks Des news! Silly Utah...

Re: HappyHeathen | 7:39 a.m. June 18, 2009

your take is abstinence (and abstinence education) doesn't work.

so can you please kindly explain why free birth control from Planned Parenthood, or easily, anonymously obtained birth control from other sources doesn't work either??????

if kids want to have sex, guess they are going to.

but all the freedom and birth control and teaching of things other than abstinence in the world seems like it can't halt the flow (make that flood) of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, unwed mothers and STD's.

and not just in utah, and their so called closed minds to the real world.

its not a money issue (free birth control) and it isn't a parents-have-to-know issue.

its not an information issue(any LDS teen can tell you how to protect against pregnancy and STD's--or can look it up and figure it out on the internet)

i guess that only leaves that its a stupid issue.
or a blatant choice issue.

The Rock | 8:54 a.m. June 18, 2009

If you were to maximize the number of kids engaging in premarital sex you have some obsticicles to over come.

1. Kids are naturally shy about talking about sex with members of the opposite sex.
2. They are afraid their parents might find out.
3. They fear pregnancy and disease.
4. They fear the shame that comes when people discover what they have done.

Getting boys and girls together to talk about sex in the same room over comes the shyness.

Planned Parenthood has worked to make it illegal for medical or school officials to tell the parents.

Free contriception and treatment for disease, and easy abortion access has eliminated fear of disease and pregnancy.

Social norms have eliminated any social stigma.

If one were to deliberately set out to see how many children you could get involved with self destructive behavior they would devise something just like today's sex education program.

How about a little morality education?

Abstinence works | 9:03 a.m. June 18, 2009

Abstinence does work - even for teenagers. But it only works for those who are committed to it. But that is the whole point. Kids who need the class about contraceptives are not committed to abstinence. Only teachers who truly believe in abstinence themselves can effectively teach it to adolescents. Teenagers have to have a deep inner conviction that they need abstinence and that it will immensely bless their life. Those who don't have that inner conviction - need to be given a reason to have one. But some kids just don't get it.

Robin | 9:13 a.m. June 18, 2009

The new/old philosophy is JUST SAY NO, cuz it works on the young minds just like the belt did to teach compliance. Put them to work on the farm and they will be to tired to chase girls or keep the girls scrubbing and sewing in the kitchen. Just get approval from Utah Division of Child support who will place them in a safe foster or group home to save them from abusive parents.

@LarvaJune | 9:24 a.m. June 18, 2009

Yes, yes, yes. You are right on the money. I still have the sack dress my mom gave me on my 12th birthday. She said if I wore it when I started getting them funny feelings down in my body, that the dress would make me not think bad things. It worked really good. Now I just gave the dress to my 10th kid, (who is a boy) cause he has been acting funny. He also is cured without anybody teaching him satins school of filth stuff.

RE: Abstinence works 9:03 AM | 9:29 a.m. June 18, 2009

The are so many conditions tied to your theory that abstinence works. Committed teachers. Committed adolescents. Plus the assumption that the kids are fully educated about what sex is.

That is a biggee. I bet a number of teens THINK they were practicing abstinence, because they are misinformed. They are fuzzy about where "the line" is. They think "well if I don't do this or that, its not sex", but are later surprised to find themselves pregnant.

MarkS | 9:41 a.m. June 18, 2009

I'm one conservative who favors this approach--broadens accessibility of additional education without requiring parents and students who want abstinence only ed. Bravo!

TJ | 9:43 a.m. June 18, 2009

I think that schools should stress abstinence until they are out of high school and more into the adult world but at the same time they need to educate kids why they should wait and that goes into teachng them about STDs and other forms of prevention. I think that abstinence is the best but we simply can't be ignorant and think all kids will follow it so there has to be some educating as to why. I am glad that people are going to be doing some educating. The kids must know what they are doing and why they should wait til they are adults. Let's make them more knowledgable. It will also make them have to accept more responsibility for their actions. I am glad they are looking into this subject.

Anonymous | 9:48 a.m. June 18, 2009

I like this idea since parents should be in charge of how this topic gets broached anyway. The responsibility of teaching anything - particularly something as important as the use of our human sexuality - belongs primarily to the parents. I am also happy that both will focus at least partially on abstinence - one important thing for any teen to know is how to say no to protect oneself emotionally and physically.

I am, however, still offended every time I hear someone stupidly assume "Kids are going to be sexually active." I made it to marriage without being sexually active and I know several other people who have managed to do the same; just because you or your kids don't have the discipline, please don't assume that means that I must not either.

Oh, and just because "it's a health issue," doesn't mean "it's not a moral issue anymore." The two have always been applicable when it comes to sexuality; nothing's changed for teen sex being either a moral or a health concern.

hmmmm | 9:52 a.m. June 18, 2009

NPR reported on this legislation this morning and had a representative of Planned Parenthood on decrying the increase in STDs and unwanted pregnancies in Utah. This was attributed to the fact that abstenience only programs do not work. The Rep from Planned Parenthood indicated that more comprehensive sex-ed was needed. To NPR's credit, NPR then rported that the increase in STD's and teen pregnancy rates were comparable in states that have more comprehensive sex-ed programs.

So...What corrolations can we draw here and what solutions can we suggest other than the agenda driven ones we seem to be getting?

I suspect that the issue lies more in the realm of social/environmental causations (Single parent households, poverty, societal permissiveness, etc...)than in sex-ed programs. (Some yahoo will flame me writing that we can't ignore sex-ed education...
Suggestion...re-read the post)

We, as a society are very active in tearing down social mores and then wondering why the benifits of those mores are gone...

I believe that this issue is a symptom of a much larger issue in our society.

Tekakaromatagi | 9:59 a.m. June 18, 2009

They did a survey of 12th graders who graduated from LDS seminary to determine the rate of those who had lost their virginity. It was in the low single digits. So some sort of morality teaching does work. We can't assume that just because someone has hormones that therefore they are going to be sexually active.

Another thing, I had heard over and over that the rate of teenage pregnancy in Utah was high. It ends up that the number of out of wedlock births was one fourth the national average. It isn't the exact statistic but there is a relationship there.

I guess that it is OK to teach about contraception and STDs, but they need to talk about morality. They need to say that if you mess around with the power to give life in a context where you are not ready to deal with the life that is conceived that it might come back and bite you hard.

Tekakaromatagi

re - LarvaJune Christiansen 4:13 | 10:00 a.m. June 18, 2009

["I am horrified to think that Utah schools are endorsing Satanism. Two of the most dangerous things imaginable are "sex" and "education", and when you put them together, you are just asking for trouble."]

thank you miss Christiansen. It's Thursday morning and I REALLY needed some good humor, and you certainly provided that. In fact, my side hurts from laughing so hard. "Satanism"?? now that is funny. Thank you so much. The religious zealots never fail to amuse.

It figures you would think the word "education" is a dangerous word. And the fact that you think "sex" is a dangerous word shows just how messed up your children will be when they grow up. You are EXACTLY the type of parent that practically forces their child to rebel, and then you wonder why it happened and what you did wrong...

you probably lock them in the closet and make them pray 8 hrs a day and then wonder why they're all messed up...

Shifting Responsibility | 10:07 a.m. June 18, 2009

This responsibility lies with parents to teach their children about sex. Do we really need a semester long class about sex ed? If they are worried about STDs, why not have required two week long section of a health class about STDs and the other problems they are worried about. If the students want to learn more, offer ways to learn about "safe sex". Let's also face the facts, kids aren't stupid. Contrary to what someone said, teenagers know how people get pregnant. I don't think (I could be wrong) there's any "fuzziness" to that line.

Dutch | 10:11 a.m. June 18, 2009

Sacred Things Taught in Church

Facts Taught in School

Questions answered by Parents

I am in favor of this plan - We need to get with it if proper education is not provided - the kids will find out in other ways.

The Eagle Forum just drives me nuts reminds me of the Judges at the Witch Trials in Salem 300 Years Ago

to - The Rock | 8:54 a.m | 10:12 a.m. June 18, 2009

["How about a little morality education?"]

I thought that was the job of you and your "only true church"? what happened with that?

you all put them in your church and spend hours upon hours teaching them your brand of morality. If that's not enough, then you are out of luck.

perhaps if you change your curriculum you will get better results...

John | 10:36 a.m. June 18, 2009

Though I hope abstience will work with my children, I certainly want them to understand all the options, just in case.

That's the whole point of teaching the alternatives: there will always be a few children that opt out of abstinence, even in UT. And they need to be prepared to act as responsibly as possible if they choose to not abstain. I certainly want the options known. Why are people so afraid of having the options known? What's there to fear?

pat | 10:46 a.m. June 18, 2009

I don't trust all teachers to present sex info without bias. Let's send info home in a pamphlet or on a CD. Let parents preview it then students read/view it at home and discuss it together. The info would be there and parents would still be in charge of how their children are being influenced.

Please don't pass this bill.

Another Unfunded Mandate? | 11:31 a.m. June 18, 2009

Once again the state is throwing out more requirements on the schools without allocating resources. For example, in a small rural high school where health is taught in 10th grade, I see the following potential problem arising. Let's say there are only 28 eligible students for the health class and half of them choose sex ed option A and the other half choose sex ed option B. Suddenly the school must allocate two sections to teach what should only be one section of health. And of course the state won't provide additional FTE to get it done, just tell the school and district to get it done... While I agree with the intent behind the bill, I fear it is just one more unfunded mandate by a well meaning legislator...

Grover | 11:34 a.m. June 18, 2009

Excellent compromise with one exception: the schools should keep a record of what class a student attended and then they should be matched with the health department records of STD cases. After 3 to 5 years the percentage results should be published for all to see. If a significant majority show up in the "tell all" class the Eagle Forum will have an "I told you so" moment. If the opposite happens their clout should decrease in the legislature. If it is about even, then the program worked as designed

Shelly | 11:43 a.m. June 18, 2009

This doesn't mean they won't be taught they way you want them to, parents. It means that you will be able to decide what you want your child to learn... which is what you want, right?

Kids have no self control | 12:09 p.m. June 18, 2009

That's why I teach them to play with guns safely, because you can't expect them to just not play with them at all, that's expecting to much and guns are just too fun.

Same with drugs, I teach my kids to do drugs safely and responsibly, because they just don't have the self control and good sense to stay away from them completely.

After all, we humans are just animals and slaves to our impulses. It's just on reasonable to expect people to exercise any self control or delay of gratification. We have a biological mandate do just do what feels good that must be obeyed!

Get it right | 12:22 p.m. June 18, 2009

Schools teach sex ed already. The bill is simply providing options for parents and giving teachers protection. Noone is promoting premarital sex. If your kids are never exposed to anything that doesn't fit within your values, they'll be shell shocked when they hit college. They need to know how to handle different viewpoints.

LarryLarry | 12:42 p.m. June 18, 2009

I just wish that somehow we can have health and sexual education in public schools based only upon science, reason, rational discussion and empirical evidence. This measure is probably the best compromise that can be hoped for now.

Whether or not abstinence education works, isn't an important issue to me. The issue is whether the reason behind it based upon science backed up by generally accepted peer reviewed research or is it based upon religious indoctrination? If not based upon science, it should not be in public schools. Morality and concepts of "sin", etc. are best left to churches, families and religious schools.

Morgan | 12:51 p.m. June 18, 2009

This proposal is an OPTION ! Since when is offering more education and information and knowledge objectionable? Get Real. This is a great idea, and it's optional.

@happy heathen | 3:02 p.m. June 18, 2009

"life or death" since when has giving information to people helped? Take for instance the gay communtiy, they can be told that their lifestyle is very dangerous to their health, but they just don't care, they just what what they want and thats all that they want.
What are children need is to be taught proper principles, values. They need to be taught these by their parents who love them more than any teacher can.

Bryn | 5:04 p.m. June 18, 2009

There is no reason anyone should object to this plan. It merely provides an option for those who CHOOSE to receive more information on the subject. If you don't want your child to be in the advanced class you have that option. The standard class will continue to teach the abstinence based material. This is a win-win for everyone.

re - Tekakaromatagi | 9:59 a.m | 5:56 p.m. June 18, 2009

["They did a survey of 12th graders who graduated from LDS seminary to determine the rate of those who had lost their virginity. It was in the low single digits. So some sort of morality teaching does work"]

these are mormon kids. you REALLY think they will tell you if they had sex?

just another fantasy in fantasy land... when will you people actually open your eyes?

Veronica | 11:50 a.m. June 19, 2009

I have taught Health in Junior High here in Salt Lake for 22 years and we've always taught the Health Ed core which included info on STD's, HIV, AIDS, Sex Ed, Abstinance and Contraception info with parental consent.I rarely had any parent decline the info. And if they did, I called and informed them what would be taught and it usually changed their minds. Sure we didn't demonstrate how to use condoms but how to use them was explained, based on the CORE and what was taught at the trainings. So what is the problem now? We already teach this stuff, at least we are supposed to.

Sarah | 12:21 p.m. June 19, 2009

I think this is a great idea to keep the "sex is taboo" nutcases from having to teach their children about sex. It's a win win. Parents who don't want their kids to know how to protect themselves when they make a bad choice can raise their kids and the parents who are teaching values at home but want their kids to know how to protect themselves will just have to deal with the anguish of knowing their kids are whores, but not have to take care of their illegitimate children. Like I said, a win-win for everybody.

People need to teach values at home. My parents did. I learned values at church too. I also learned about sex ed from the time I was in 4th grade all the way through 12th (glad I wasn't in the state of Utah or I wouldn't know anything).
Just because I learned about contraception didn't give me a reason to go out there and go against all of my beliefs and my morals. If you raise your kids to think for themselves, they won't be so impressionable, but they will be knowledgeable.

What babies.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.