Sex education could be a felony


Tonington
Avatar
#1
--

Quote:

A Wisconsin district attorney is urging schools to drop their sex-education programs, warning that the teachers involved could be arrested if they follow a new state law requiring them to instruct students on how to use condoms and other contraceptives.

...

The state law, called the Healthy Youth Act, took effect in March. Starting this fall, it requires schools with sex-education courses to teach students medically accurate, age-appropriate information, including how to use birth control and prevent sexually transmitted diseases. It also requires the classes to include information about how to recognize signs of abuse and how alcohol can affect decision making.

Parents will be permitted to remove their children from sex-education classes, as they could under previous state law. Schools also will be allowed the choice of whether to offer sex education, but must notify parents if they decide not to.

Insanity. Give them the tools to make informed decisions, and you could be arrested and charged potentially with felony delinquency of a minor.

Did I say insane already? Insane...
 
#juan
#2
Quote:

A Wisconsin district attorney is urging schools to drop their sex-education programs, warning that the teachers involved could be arrested if they follow a new state law requiring them to instruct students on how to use condoms and other contraceptives.

How can you be arrested if you follow a "New State Law"?
 
karrie
#3
Gotta love when laws conflict.
 
Cliffy
Avatar
#4
My goodness. There seems to be no depth of stupidity that humans can go to. When I see stuff like this I think, not only is the species terminal but should be.
 
FiveParadox
Avatar
#5
That sounds insane. We should be arming today’s youth with as many tools as necessary to ensure that they are able to, should they so choose, engage in healthy and safe sexual relationships. Youth have had sex for as long as history goes back, I think the point here is that there is a large crowd of people who think that if we don’t teach youth about sex, they’ll never figure it out on their own and therefore won’t do it.
 
lone wolf
Avatar
#6
Gawd! We had that in high school many moons ago. It was called Health Class....

Stupid Dark Ages laws.
 
SirJosephPorter
#7
Why should anybody be surprised at this? This is USA people, anything can happen in USA. This DA is obviously a puritan, a religious right fanatic. Evidently other DAs don’t have this problem.

Now, I don’t know if there really is such a law or whether this DA is simply making it all up because he is opposed to sex education in schools (or supports abstinence only sex education, which simply consists of the advice ‘just say no’.).

But even if there were such a law, a reasonable DA would simply ignore it and let the kids have age appropriate sex education. There are plenty of laws in each jurisdiction which are never enforced.

I remember a while ago in Michigan a DA started enforcing law against adultery. He prosecuted somebody for committing adultery. I don’t know what happened to it, I assume it went nowhere.

But this is USA, anything can happen in USA.
 
lone wolf
Avatar
#8
What's the obsession with religious right and why do you always steer threads there? Did they see through you? Reject you? Did a Republican steal your girlfriend? Why are you so rabid?
 
karrie
Avatar
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

What's the obsession with religious right and why do you always steer threads there? Did they see through you? Reject you? Did a Republican steal your girlfriend? Why are you so rabid?

Well wolf... only a religious person would notice conflicting laws and attempt to warn people of them. And only the religious would write those two laws... attempting to educate minors... and attempting to prevent people from contributing to delinquency of minors. Totally smacks of religion on both accounts.
 
Cliffy
Avatar
#10
Throughout the history of the human race, until rather recently, we were married and had sex at puberty. Since the industrial revolution, or thereabouts, we decided to prolong youth. In some regions we aren't considered adults until 21. How did this happen and why? Is it because we have been able to artificially extend life of most adults or is it that we don't want our children to enjoy sex like we did? What are the ages when our hormones are at their peak?

I keep going back to having valves inserted into a boys Vas Deferen at puberty and turn it off until he has reached the age of reason or until a panel of women decide he is mature enough to take care of any children he fathers. It would eliminate most teenage pregnancies and the need for most abortions.
 
lone wolf
Avatar
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Well wolf... only a religious person would notice conflicting laws and attempt to warn people of them. And only the religious would write those two laws... attempting to educate minors... and attempting to prevent people from contributing to delinquency of minors. Totally smacks of religion on both accounts.

Maybe so ... but where is the warning in the Only in America rant? Religion has no monopoly on right and right has no monopoly on religion.


Oh yeah ... I didn't quote him....
 
karrie
Avatar
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

It would eliminate most teenage pregnancies and the need for most abortions.

And be one of the most disastrous things to happen to human reproduction in eons, as the risk of infection seems like a secondary thought to young men when compared to the risk of impregnating someone. Disease would run rampant.

A step in the right direction, but, it still falls short imo.
 
SirJosephPorter
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Throughout the history of the human race, until rather recently, we were married and had sex at puberty. Since the industrial revolution, or thereabouts, we decided to prolong youth. In some regions we aren't considered adults until 21. How did this happen and why? Is it because we have been able to artificially extend life of most adults or is it that we don't want our children to enjoy sex like we did? What are the ages when our hormones are at their peak?

I think in some parts of USA 21 is the age at which a person becomes an adult. Indeed, up until 30 years ago only people over 21 were allowed to vote in USA, they passed a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18.

But it also depends upon what we are talking about, what constitutes an adult depends upon the circumstances. Even in the states where 21 is the adult age, kids as young as 12 or 13 years old can be prosecuted as adults in the criminal court (and given the death penalty).
 
CDNBear
Avatar
#14
Did any of you actually read the letter, or are you just reacting to the charged headlines?
 
DaSleeper
Avatar
#15
I wonder if this new law has anything to do with the Kevin Jennings story?????
Obama's "Safe School Czar"
 
wulfie68
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Did any of you actually read the letter, or are you just reacting to the charged headlines?

I read the letter and I can almost agree with some of it, but on the other hand a lot of it does seem like a zealot using his office to enforce his moral code on others.

I don't think kids should be having sex in their early teens, I think responsible parents should promote abstinence, but at the same time, I KNOW (having been there myself) that things will happen and kids will want to experiment and push the boundaries. When they do, I'm a firm believer that the better informed they are, the better off we ALL are. As a parent, when the time comes I hope my son will come to me with his questions but if he doesn't I would far rather him receiving classroom instruction than being totally ignorant of the risks he is taking and the steps he can take to minimize those risks.

The DA's comments about sex with under aged individuals seem heavy handed and alarmist to me: does he really think every 18 year old kid who bones his 16-17 yr old girlfriend is a sex offender (or the reverse in those cases where the girl is older)? His comments about proper instruction in contraceptives being contributing to delinquency also seem ludicrous to me, and to be honest I'd love to hear him try to explain his reasoning to a jury if he was ever to prosecute a teacher for following their mandate under this law.

SJP's comments about this being an "only in America" thing are true to the extent that in the US county DA's are elected and thus are more politicized pretty much by default, but for all his grandstanding about the backwardness of Americans, he lives in a province that doesn't believe that a person is a full adult at 18... or else why isn't the drinking age 18 in Ontario? And wasn't SJP one of those lambasting the Canadian Women's Hockey Team for "breaking the law" and letting 18 yr olds consume alcohol? Some consistency of position from him would be a welcome change, but I don't really expect it, given his fixation on trying to attack the USA, Alberta, the Conservative Party and anyone else who says or does anything he doesn't agree with...
 
CDNBear
Avatar
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

I read the letter and I can almost agree with some of it, but on the other hand a lot of it does seem like a zealot using his office to enforce his moral code on others.

I completely agree, also having read the letter. I would go so far as to admit, he makes a reasonable case. In so far as the laws contradicting each, which is no excuse to break one of them. The legislation needs to amend that. Although, I did catch how in the letter Southworth eludes to the legislature amending the new law, lol.

Quote:

I don't think kids should be having sex in their early teens, I think responsible parents should promote abstinence, but at the same time, I KNOW (having been there myself) that things will happen and kids will want to experiment and push the boundaries. When they do, I'm a firm believer that the better informed they are, the better off we ALL are. As a parent, when the time comes I hope my son will come to me with his questions but if he doesn't I would far rather him receiving classroom instruction than being totally ignorant of the risks he is taking and the steps he can take to minimize those risks.

Agreed.

Quote:

The DA's comments about sex with under aged individuals seem heavy handed and alarmist to me: does he really think every 18 year old kid who bones his 16-17 yr old girlfriend is a sex offender (or the reverse in those cases where the girl is older)? His comments about proper instruction in contraceptives being contributing to delinquency also seem ludicrous to me, and to be honest I'd love to hear him try to explain his reasoning to a jury if he was ever to prosecute a teacher for following their mandate under this law.

That would be comical if not farcical scene to be sure.

Quote:

SJP's comments about this being an "only in America" thing are true to the extent that in the US county DA's are elected and thus are more politicized pretty much by default, but for all his grandstanding about the backwardness of Americans, he lives in a province that doesn't believe that a person is a full adult at 18... or else why isn't the drinking age 18 in Ontario? And wasn't SJP one of those lambasting the Canadian Women's Hockey Team for "breaking the law" and letting 18 yr olds consume alcohol?

Yes he was, but SJP uses anything he can get his hands on to bash the US and the political righ progressives, to the point of wh!ring his own principals to do so. I really don't place much stock in his extremist views.

Quote:

Some consistency of position from him would be a welcome change, but I don't really expect it, given his fixation on trying to attack the USA, Alberta, the Conservative Party and anyone else who says or does anything he doesn't agree with...

Like I said, some people would wh!re themselves to promote their agenda. He certainly doesn't have a lock on that trait. Sadly.
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#18
There are many oddities in law. In several states in the US, there is such a thing as a tax license for illegal drugs; you can apply to have the tax license for illegal drugs. It does not, however, permit you to have illegal drugs, which are still illegal. All it means is that, if you are caught in possession of illegal drugs without the tax permit, there's one more offense you can be charged with.
 
selin
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

There are many oddities in law. In several states in the US, there is such a thing as a tax license for illegal drugs; you can apply to have the tax license for illegal drugs. It does not, however, permit you to have illegal drugs, which are still illegal. All it means is that, if you are caught in possession of illegal drugs without the tax permit, there's one more offense you can be charged with.

really interesting, i cannot understand USA ever.
 
wulfie68
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I completely agree, also having read the letter. I would go so far as to admit, he makes a reasonable case. In so far as the laws contradicting each, which is no excuse to break one of them. The legislation needs to amend that. Although, I did catch how in the letter Southworth eludes to the legislature amending the new law, lol.

Absolutely. This situation seems to be something that was a) hastily pushed through, b) pushed through knowing later revisions to existing codes would be required or a combination of the above.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

That would be comical if not farcical scene to be sure.

The potential for comedy is definately there but I was thinking more in terms of how does he make a case that you alluded to above: the law requires teachers to break the law so the teacher is damned if they do or damned if they don't. I want to see the logic he presents in court to say one teacher deserves to be punished for breaking one law vs another teacher who breaks the new one. If he can present an intelligent argument to convince a jury, maybe his political sights should be set a lot higher...
 
CDNBear
Avatar
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

Absolutely. This situation seems to be something that was a) hastily pushed through, b) pushed through knowing later revisions to existing codes would be required or a combination of the above.

The legislature should have included and thus passed amendments when the piece was being written. My guess is, they didn't count on a legally astute DA with a moral agenda, to catch something they missed, lol.

In the end, he would have to prove criminal intent. In the spirit in which the new law is written, I think it would have nullified any real threat from antiquated laws. Even if he could get it past a Grand Jury for indictment.

Quote:

The potential for comedy is definately there but I was thinking more in terms of how does he make a case that you alluded to above: the law requires teachers to break the law so the teacher is damned if they do or damned if they don't. I want to see the logic he presents in court to say one teacher deserves to be punished for breaking one law vs another teacher who breaks the new one. If he can present an intelligent argument to convince a jury, maybe his political sights should be set a lot higher...

LOL, well now that you expanded on it, I hear you and agree. I was picturing a stuttering boob. I guess this is something akin to the glass half full, et al. Where you see the potential for a monumental achievement, I the possibility of buffoonery, lol. This of course follows along with what I said about you the other day, lol. How did the wife and step son take to my impression of you? lol.
 
wulfie68
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

LOL, well now that you expanded on it, I hear you and agree. I was picturing a stuttering boob. I guess this is something akin to the glass half full, et al. Where you see the potential for a monumental achievement, I the possibility of buffoonery, lol. This of course follows along with what I said about you the other day, lol. How did the wife and step son take to my impression of you? lol.

I don't know that its a monumental achievement except in the ability to sell people on his agenda: if he can demonstrate that level of persuasiveness he must have a talent for it. As for the family, the wife laughed, the step son rolled his eyes with a "yeah right" and my 7 month old wee man agrees wholeheartedly from what I can tell
 
SirJosephPorter
#23
[quote=wulfie68;1253373]



Quote:

SJP's comments about this being an "only in America" thing are true to the extent that in the US county DA's are elected and thus are more politicized pretty much by default, but for all his grandstanding about the backwardness of Americans,

This particular DA represents a very rural, very conservative region. He is presumably a product of that region and he is trying to impose his views upon the school board. My hope would be that the state cracks down on him.

Quote:

he lives in a province that doesn't believe that a person is a full adult at 18... or else why isn't the drinking age 18 in Ontario? And wasn't SJP one of those lambasting the Canadian Women's Hockey Team for "breaking the law" and letting 18 yr olds consume alcohol? Some consistency of position from him would be a welcome change, but I don't really expect it, given his fixation on trying to attack the USA, Alberta, the Conservative Party and anyone else who says or does anything he doesn't agree with...

As to why Ontario has a drinking age of 19, I have no idea, that is an anomaly. And you have got it totally wrong, I was not lambasting women's hockey team for breaking the law, I was lambasting them for inappropriate behavior, a different thing altogether. Indeed, it was not clear if they had broken any laws, but their behavior was totally inappropriate. There is no inconsistency in my position.
 
AnnaG
Avatar
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

--



Insanity. Give them the tools to make informed decisions, and you could be arrested and charged potentially with felony delinquency of a minor.

Did I say insane already? Insane...

Well, that's what happens when politicians get together and decide what's best for the rest of us. Most of them are out-of-touch with reality. Yet we keep wanting them to run our society. So who're the crazy ones?
 
EagleSmack
#25
Need classroom instruction of how to put on condoms.


Really?
 
CDNBear
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Need classroom instruction of how to put on condoms.


Really?

Yes, some people do. Especially children raised in a bubble.
 
AnnaG
Avatar
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Need classroom instruction of how to put on condoms.


Really?

Apparently, kids in Wisconsin need to learn, yup. lol
Quote:

The state law, called the Healthy Youth Act, took effect in March. Starting this fall, it requires schools with sex-education courses to teach students medically accurate, age-appropriate information, including how to use birth control and prevent sexually transmitted diseases. It also requires the classes to include information about how to recognize signs of abuse and how alcohol can affect decision making.

from the OP.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest teaching a kid how to use contraceptives is promoting underaged sexual behavior. Like sex would stop because of some law anyway. roflmao Like I said, politicians aren't exactly living in the real world.
 

Similar Threads

1
Free education for all?
by Machjo | Nov 30th, 2008
2
What is our education?
by china | Aug 3rd, 2008
29
Education/Learning
by china | Jan 11th, 2008
0
Self -education
by china | Nov 27th, 2006
no new posts