HB363
-
Dragon Lady
- Posts: 2332
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:07 pm
- Location: Riverton, UT
Re: HB363
His tone sounded more frustrated to me. And a little dismissive, but only because it's a moot point now.
Re: HB363
I think Tao and I are reading different laws because the bill he posted in his last reply seems to say that schools MUST teach abstinence and not contraception. Or I'm misunderstanding something.
beautiful, dirty, rich
Re: HB363
Aye, I agree about my tone, which is one of the big reasons I try to avoid political conversations. Politics as currently situated is a very adversarial medium, and at least one study has shown evidence to the effect of a near-total drop from frontal cortex to limbic, roughly meaning that when a topic turns political, (or religious, or adversarial in any general way) rationality goes out the window and emotion rules. Seeing the prohibitions of the current State Code struck out by HB363 surprised me considering what I knew of the political intimations of those I heard most vehement against the bill. Yes, I could see that it was an abstinence only bill, abstinence is the only STD free sexual policy. And for Utah to be relinquishing their sex ed curriculum to the public, they are going to stress that point hard, which is where the pundits and news stations had their hayday.
HB363 didn't do as much as I thought it did, (the striking out of the prohibitions I listed at the end of my quote just allowed them to effectively re-write them elsewhere, for example) The a b c list in my first post was lifted and paraphrased from the bill synopsis, and it really is all that it did that was significantly new was c) along with implementing a parent education program that would have school districts teach parents on how best to teach their kids.
It had its pluses (more flexibility and more effective teaching) and its minuses (removing state curriculum might mean schools could opt-out entirely, potentially leaving kids uninformed by parents or by teachers). I don't really feel one way or another about the bill, which is why I thought I could be less emotionally tied to the conversation, but to see the news media skew it so hard, and to see people whose intelligence I am sure of seem to propagate a pogrom got under my skin moreso than anything has in years. In the end, I was as guilty as any, moreso perhaps, by being more aware of the dangers.
Whistler: it is a little more explained out in the full context, but often things are worded awkwardly due to legislatures trying to think just as you: "what's slipping through the cracks, what would get misapplied?" So, for example, a sex ed instructor can teach about condoms as a contraceptive, but can not advocate their use, so most teaching ends up along the lines of "this can work in some, but not all, cases to prevent pregnancy; but does not prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases." It's a dicey line to walk, so I don't think it is uncommon to throw the whole thing out, which works, but at the same time-- doesn't.
Again, it is a tough thing to ever put into words. Some would look at it and say "throw the whole thing out, don't put any restriction on knowledge, the better informed, the better decisions will be made" but in the words of Jaime Escalante in Stand and Deliver: "If I teach sex, I have to assign sex as homework." That'll go over well.
As for the desire to be more involved in politics, I applaud it. But I know you well enough that I encourage you to get involved in the intellectual side of poilitics, not just the emotional roller-coasters. As I told one of my students in a froth about President Obama signing a bill allowing the arrest and indefinite detainment of civilians: If it is proposed as a law, it is written down and available to the public, you'll have a lot to wade through, but it is a million times better now than even 20 years ago. I had him pull up H.R.1540, do some searches within it, look up terms on wikipedia and other sites, and he left, if not moved from his political positions, at least much more aware of what exactly is going on, and perhaps some of the why's other intelligent individuals put these things into place. Basically; anytime you get a knee-jerk reaction of "how dare they!?" someone is likely misrepresenting things to you, or a loophole wasn't caught and closed in time. I could actually see you do well in the political/legal arena, if such a thing interested you.
@ Imogen, that's how the law stands now, yes. Not that it can't be taught, but it can't be advocated, as Whistler pointed out. The new bill didn't do anything along those lines. And honestly, from a purely fiscal point of view, there really isn't much of an argument to be made there. It's not abstinence as the only option, it is abstinence as the only STD free option. Until we can get a form of contraception that prevents STD's, that's not likely to change.
Edit: Link to the law as it now stands, and the vetoed bill if anyone is interested. I should have posted them both earlier, not just the one.
HB363 didn't do as much as I thought it did, (the striking out of the prohibitions I listed at the end of my quote just allowed them to effectively re-write them elsewhere, for example) The a b c list in my first post was lifted and paraphrased from the bill synopsis, and it really is all that it did that was significantly new was c) along with implementing a parent education program that would have school districts teach parents on how best to teach their kids.
It had its pluses (more flexibility and more effective teaching) and its minuses (removing state curriculum might mean schools could opt-out entirely, potentially leaving kids uninformed by parents or by teachers). I don't really feel one way or another about the bill, which is why I thought I could be less emotionally tied to the conversation, but to see the news media skew it so hard, and to see people whose intelligence I am sure of seem to propagate a pogrom got under my skin moreso than anything has in years. In the end, I was as guilty as any, moreso perhaps, by being more aware of the dangers.
Whistler: it is a little more explained out in the full context, but often things are worded awkwardly due to legislatures trying to think just as you: "what's slipping through the cracks, what would get misapplied?" So, for example, a sex ed instructor can teach about condoms as a contraceptive, but can not advocate their use, so most teaching ends up along the lines of "this can work in some, but not all, cases to prevent pregnancy; but does not prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases." It's a dicey line to walk, so I don't think it is uncommon to throw the whole thing out, which works, but at the same time-- doesn't.
Again, it is a tough thing to ever put into words. Some would look at it and say "throw the whole thing out, don't put any restriction on knowledge, the better informed, the better decisions will be made" but in the words of Jaime Escalante in Stand and Deliver: "If I teach sex, I have to assign sex as homework." That'll go over well.
As for the desire to be more involved in politics, I applaud it. But I know you well enough that I encourage you to get involved in the intellectual side of poilitics, not just the emotional roller-coasters. As I told one of my students in a froth about President Obama signing a bill allowing the arrest and indefinite detainment of civilians: If it is proposed as a law, it is written down and available to the public, you'll have a lot to wade through, but it is a million times better now than even 20 years ago. I had him pull up H.R.1540, do some searches within it, look up terms on wikipedia and other sites, and he left, if not moved from his political positions, at least much more aware of what exactly is going on, and perhaps some of the why's other intelligent individuals put these things into place. Basically; anytime you get a knee-jerk reaction of "how dare they!?" someone is likely misrepresenting things to you, or a loophole wasn't caught and closed in time. I could actually see you do well in the political/legal arena, if such a thing interested you.
@ Imogen, that's how the law stands now, yes. Not that it can't be taught, but it can't be advocated, as Whistler pointed out. The new bill didn't do anything along those lines. And honestly, from a purely fiscal point of view, there really isn't much of an argument to be made there. It's not abstinence as the only option, it is abstinence as the only STD free option. Until we can get a form of contraception that prevents STD's, that's not likely to change.
Edit: Link to the law as it now stands, and the vetoed bill if anyone is interested. I should have posted them both earlier, not just the one.
He who knows others is clever;
He who knows himself has discernment.
He who overcomes others has force;
He who overcomes himself is strong. 33:1-4
He who knows himself has discernment.
He who overcomes others has force;
He who overcomes himself is strong. 33:1-4
Re: HB363
Well, I think I am fine with either law, if non-advocacy still allows for information. No hard feelings, I have been a little grumpikins recently with some sinus pain.
Re: HB363
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53405 ... t.html.csp
Misinformation [and ill-informed attitudes about basic reproductive biology] like [that demonstrated by the women and girls in the article] above concerns me; I have a hard time believing that straightforward, nondogmatic, biological education wouldn't help. I also wonder whence the huge knowledge gap between Utah teens and twentysomething women.
(Edited for clarity)
Misinformation [and ill-informed attitudes about basic reproductive biology] like [that demonstrated by the women and girls in the article] above concerns me; I have a hard time believing that straightforward, nondogmatic, biological education wouldn't help. I also wonder whence the huge knowledge gap between Utah teens and twentysomething women.
(Edited for clarity)