Family life education; emphasis of abstinence in curricula. (HB164)
Introduced By
Del.
Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge)
Scott Lingamfelter
(R-Woodbridge)
Served: 2002–
Progress
☑ |
Introduced |
☒ |
Passed Committee |
☑ |
Passed House |
☐ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Emphasis of abstinence in family life curricula. Requires that any family life education course including a discussion of sexual intercourse emphasize that abstinence is the accepted norm and the only guarantee against unwanted pregnancy. The bill also requires that family life courses include materials that emphasize honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage; provide information on the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases; inform students on laws addressing child support obligations and the unlawfulness of sexual relations between unmarried persons; and advise students on ways to avoid unwanted sexual advances and resist negative peer pressure. Further, the bill provides that students may opt out of family life courses if a parent or guardian submits a written objection and clarifies that parents have the right to review any family life curriculum, whether such curriculum is mandatory or optional. View Full Text »
Comments
I think the wording around the "accepted norm" part is really sloppy. Accepted by whom? By married couples? Is it really the norm, in the sense that is the typical situation (that's what "norm" means--the typical pattern or situation)? I get the part about abstinence being the best way of avoiding unwanted pregnancy (I would quibble with the word "guarantee" because one could be raped), but stating that it is "the accepted norm" seems contrary to the truth as well as syntactically confusing.
The phrase
"unlawfulness of sexual relations between unmarried persons"
is verrry scarrry in light of the passage of the anti-gay Marshall-Newman amendment. The SCOTUS's Lawrence decision ruled that consensual sexual relations between unmarried individuals are constitutionally protected. This phrase clearly contradicts that ruling.