Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

If you live in Utah, please consider contacting Governor Herbert to ask him to veto the recently-passed abstinence-only sex ed bill. (His phone number is 801-538-1000. I can probably dig up other contact info, if you'd like.)

Also, please consider contacting your state legislators to see if they voted for the bill.

How the heck did that get through?!

I'm not really a phone person, and I am a little lazy, does he have an e-mail address or facebook page?

Whistler wrote:I'm not really a phone person, and I am a little lazy, does he have an e-mail address or facebook page?

Here's a page with a couple of email links:
http://www.utah.gov/governor/contact/index.html

Apparently 36,000 people signed an online petition asking him to veto the bill, but now he's saying that only phone calls or emails "count," so those two methods are the preferred means of contact.

Why are people still pushing abstinence only? It's time to move into reality, people!!!

I was talking to a friend who teaches high school in Utah last night and he's pretty horrified about this.

Well, when you have pregnant students walking around, you get sick of delusional politicians.

Fredjikrang wrote:How the heck did that get through?!

My guess (and it's only a guess), is that it's an election year and the (overwhelmingly republican) state legislature is trying to move to the right so they'll make it through the primaries.

NerdGirl wrote:I was talking to a friend who teaches high school in Utah last night and he's pretty horrified about this.

Did you tell him to call or email Governor Herbert? Did he tell his fellow teachers to do so?

Katya wrote:

NerdGirl wrote:I was talking to a friend who teaches high school in Utah last night and he's pretty horrified about this.

Did you tell him to call or email Governor Herbert? Did he tell his fellow teachers to do so?

He had already emailed when I talked to him.

NerdGirl wrote:

Katya wrote:

NerdGirl wrote:I was talking to a friend who teaches high school in Utah last night and he's pretty horrified about this.

Did you tell him to call or email Governor Herbert? Did he tell his fellow teachers to do so?

He had already emailed when I talked to him.

Good. This is so frustrating.

I just emailed the Governor's office through that link you provided, Katya. I'm surprised a bill like that made it through, even in Utah. I hope Herbert vetoes it.

okay, I e-mailed too. Thanks Katya!

Whistler wrote:okay, I e-mailed too. Thanks Katya!

Thank you!

Quick question for everyone interested: how many people here have actually read the bill and know what it is that everyone is in a froth about?

Do people realize that the "abstinence only" portion of the bill is referring to the only way to prevent STDs? That and allowing local school districts the choice as to their curriculum instead of having to stick to a State-mandated curriculum (So if your Nephi School District decides that abstinance only fits their needs, they can teach it if they so choose, provided that their material covers at least sufficient information to satisfy the State or a local curriculum committee.

Does anyone know why sex ed is governmentally mandated in the first place? I personally don't see the government (at any level) jumping out of its way to do anything that doesn't benefit itself; Pell grants are there to help you get a higher education, which should get you a bigger paycheck, which should get you a) off of welfare and b) paying more taxes. Free public schools are much the same. Better educated citizens are more law-abiding, more likely to be productive, and less likely to be a drain on governmental resources.

Yes, I think sex ed should be implemented, and preferably in the most effective way possible. Which just happens to be via parental instruction, something this bill addresses as part of the school districts responsibility: teaching parents how to teach their kids. The past number of decades have shown that the status quo isn't cutting it for STD prevention and teen pregnancies, both drains on governmental resources. (On a similar note the same thing applies to the D.A.R.E. program, sure, it was informative, studies show that kids were much more informed when they did drugs, the only noticeable positive thing to come out of the D.A.R.E. program was better relationships with police officers.)

I've an idea, lets see if we can change the status quo (ineffective, state-mandated curriculum) to something that allows local schools to provide sex ed that teaches:
a) the importance of abstinence from all sexual activity before marriage (and fidelity after marriage) as the only sure methods for preventing certain STDs
b) the personal skills that encourage individual choices that will sustain healthy personal lifestyles
c) permits local school boards to adopt abstinence only instructional materials if they so choose, as long as the material is OK'd by the State Board of Education; or at least by the school district's curriculum materials review committee.

Sound reasonable for Utah?

Geez, this is why I stay out of politics.

Tao wrote:Quick question for everyone interested: how many people here have actually read the bill and know what it is that everyone is in a froth about?

No. But that is why I haven't sent an email as of yet, despite thinking that an abstinence only policy is foolish, to say the least. I don't like trusting only in word of mouth, even from people that I know fairly well. I did the same thing with the whole SOPA mess. I actually researched it before doing anything. (And yes, I did do something.) If there is something that I have been learning for the last few years, it is that every story has at least two versions, and typically neither is exactly true. Especially in politics.

Perhaps you could give us a more clear view of your impressions of the bill? There is some of it in your post, but I feel like some of it got lost in your frustration with this topic. Could you just do an outline of it for us?

What I believe you mentioned already is that it does not require, but simply allows, an abstinence only curriculum. Correct? So, does this mean that it basically abolishes the state mandated curriculum? It seems odd that it would mention abstinence only education if that were the case.

Tao and Fred, this is kinda a moot point by now: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... ic-schools

Eh, not a big deal either way, just always a shame to see otherwise intelligent individuals acting (in my opinion) contrary to their norm.

Fred: the paragraph at the end of my last post with the suggestion of three focuses was a direct paraphrase of the bill that was passed, and now vetoed. We are back now to the old law which reads in part:

... (1) (a) The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum requirements under Section 53A-1-402, that include instruction in:
(i) community and personal health;
(ii) physiology;
(iii) personal hygiene; and
(iv) prevention of communicable disease.
(b) (i) That instruction shall stress:
(A) the importance of abstinence from all sexual activity before marriage and fidelity after marriage as methods for preventing certain communicable diseases; and
(B) personal skills that encourage individual choice of abstinence and fidelity.

...

(ii) A local school board may choose to adopt:
(A) the instructional materials recommended under Subsection (1)(c)(i); or
(B) other instructional materials as provided in state board rule.
(iii) The state board rule made under Subsection (1)(c)(ii)(B) shall include, at a minimum:
(A)that the materials adopted by a local school board under Subsection [(1)(c)] shall be based upon recommendations of the school district's curriculum materials review committee that comply with state law and state board rules emphasizing abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage, and prohibiting instruction in:
(I) the intricacies of intercourse, sexual stimulation, or erotic behavior;
(II) the advocacy of homosexuality;
(III) the advocacy or encouragement of the use of contraceptive methods or devices;
or
(IV) the advocacy of sexual activity outside of marriage;

Utah code 53A-13-101, modified by House Bill 363, reinstated by public demand. Emphasis mine.

Good game, Utah advocates, you've just vetoed the amendment that allowed individual school districts the freedom to choose their own sex ed curriculum, as long as it pointed out that abstinence is the only way to avoid STDs, in favor of State mandated curriculum that not only forbids talk about the intricacies of sex, homosexuality, the use of contraceptives, et al. while still being abstinence only, but comes from the state level, with no way to get around it.

Glad to know this is what the people wanted. Looks to be yet another good political year.

What annoys me is the people claiming that the HB363 was 'snuck by' by right-winged activists, when it was in my eyes one of the most liberal steps this state has seen on the sex ed front in years. But people would rather believe facebook and their favorite news pundit than bloody well looking at what it is going to be concerning their lives and the lives of their children.

Yes, HB363 probably wasn't going to solve all of the issues involved in sex education, it struck out the clause on homosexuality but basically re-inserted it elsewhere, for example. But for heaven's sake, to go from State-mandated abstinence only curriculum to a curriculum made by individual school districts, approved by a committee of parents and guardians sure sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

Meh. I don't really mind one way or the other. Just please think twice about what you do, for my sanity's sake if not for any other reason.

I've been thinking about what you said.

First, you're right, I didn't actually read the bill. I trusted Katya's opinion on this since we usually agree about political things, but I should have found out more about what the issue was, and maybe read some pundits and the bill, before e-mailing the... governor?

I've been trying, instead of being apathetic about political things, to try to care about them, and I'm not really sure how to make a difference in my community. Your attitude about my actions made me feel stupid, and that trying to get involved in politics is basically a waste of time since my brain doesn't work political-like (I look at laws and I'm constantly thinking of cases not covered by them, or where applying them would be absurd).

Secondly, even after I've read the parts you've quoted, I still don't understand the bill. Does no advocacy mean that they can't include it as part of their sex education?

I definitely regret introducing or spreading misinformation on this topic. (I'm also baffled as to why the legislators who voted for it didn't defend it in the terms expressed by Tao. Is it possible that no one read the actual bill? )

However, I agree with Whistler that your tone is very dismissive and arrogant and if you didn't intend it that way, it might be wise to revise or rethink your statements.