Abstinence Only Approach in Ohio? Uhm … No.
On facedouche, a friend linked this article on an Ohio Republican proposal on public school sex ed. It made a few claims which are clearly inaccurate.
Today, Republicans on the Ohio House Finance Committee voted to adopt changes to the two-year state budget that will significantly restrict the teaching of sexual education in the state, mandating an abstinence-only approach.
The language also states that class instruction in Ohio may not provide materials that condone sexual activity among unmarried students. It even allows a parent to sue if an educator violates the restrictive provisions in the law.
In short, the state budget now mandates that Ohio adopt an abstinence-only approach to sex education program.
Humn … sexual activity should be “instructed” and “condoned”?
Condone: verb [ with obj. ]
accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue: the college cannot condone any behavior that involves illicit drugs.
• approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance: the practice is not officially condoned by any airline.
What’s the problem?
Should kids be encouraged to have sex? To experiment sexually with non-intercourse activities, which (of course) would NEVER EVER lead to them doing the deed?
That argument aside, let’s go to the full text.
Prohibits the instruction of sexual education coursework by an individual who or an organization that endorses student nonabstinence from sexual activity as an acceptable behavior, or promotes, endorses, advocates, or condones “gateway sexual activity.”
Specifies prohibitions, conditions, and exemptions for sexual education course instruction when dealing with contraception, sexual demonstrations, sexual materials, and sexual activities and messages that encourage experimentation with sexual activity.
Grants a student’s parent or guardian a cause of action against an individual who, or an organization that, promotes gateway sexual activity or demonstrates sexual activity in sexual
Defines “gateway sexual activity” for purposes of the amendment as “sexual contact,” as defined under current law in the Criminal Code, which is the touching of another person in an erogenous zone.
It stresses that sexual activity should be abstained until after marriage. That there are potential negative side affects for pre-martial sex. That having children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful effect on the mom, the baby, and society. It stresses that STSs are serious, and the only way to be 100% sure to avoid one is to abstain for sexual activity (you can get STDs from some of those “gateway activities”.
(F) Instruction under this section shall not do any of the following:
1. Promote, implicitly or explicitly, any gateway sexual activity or health message that encourages students to experiment with sexual activity.
2) Provide or distribute on school grounds materials that condone, encourage, or promote student sexual activity among unmarried students;
3) Display or conduct demonstrations with devices specifically manufacture for sexual stimulation.
Problem with this?
It isn’t an abstinence only approach, it’s an abstinence friendly one:
Medically accurate information about contraception and condoms may be provided if the information is presented in a manner consistent with provisions of this section and clearly infomrs students that while methods may reduce the risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy, only abstinence removes all risk.
It continues on to state that “nothing in this section shall prohibit the scientific study of the sexual reproductive system through coursework in biology, physiology, anatomy, health, or physical education.”
So, quick review – it’s best to wait to have sex until you’re married. They’re not going to teach children about sex toys, and blow jobs. It’s going to inform them about birth control, while explaining it isn’t 100% accurate.