State sex-ed bill protested

Protesters urged Gov. Doug Ducey to veto a sex-ed bill they say is an attempt to reinstate anti-LGBTQ policies that were repealed two years ago.

Protesters on Thursday urged Gov. Doug Ducey to veto a bill that would ban classroom discussion of topics related to gender identity, sexuality and AIDS, among others, without express parental permission.

Senate Bill 1456 would require parents to opt their child into sex education classes, rather than the long-standing practice of having them opt out. It also would forbid any form of sex education before fifth grade.

Critics say it’s an attempt to reinstate anti-LGBTQ policies that were repealed two years ago and moves Arizona backward in terms of treating all populations equitably.

Secretary of State Katie Hobbs urged the Republican governor to veto the bill, which she said would be in keeping with his action in 2019, when he quickly signed the repeal of what was referred to as the “no promo homo” law. That law banned any sex-ed curriculum that could be construed as

putting light.

Hobbs called the bill out of touch with Arizona values, and in later comments, elaborated that it again would shine a negative spotlight on the state.

“It’s another extreme bill that will publicly hurt our state at a time we need to be rebuilding,” said Hobbs, a Democrat. She noted that the 2019 repeal was prompted in large part by a discrimination lawsuit filed against the state, and predicted another lawsuit is likely if Ducey signs SB 1456 into law.

Tory Roberg and her child, Ray, held up a large hand-painted sign urging the veto. Last summer, Ray came out as transgender, and Roberg said the restrictions on course content effectively marginalize students who are non-binary.

homosexuality

in

a

positive She disputed supporters of the proposed law who said it is simply about parental choice and does not discriminate against anyone.

“This is absolutely aimed at the LGBTQ community,” said Roberg, speaking as a parent. “They wouldn’t even be able to talk about important characters in LGBTQ history.”

During testimony last month at the Capitol, Sen. Nancy Barto, the bill’s sponsor, was asked if the legislation would bar discussion of the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York, considered the birthplace of the gay rights movement.

“This is an example of where parents need to be specifically opting in,” Barto, R-Phoenix said.

Likewise, any classroom discussion that would veer into topics such as sexual orientation would be off limits unless parents were fully aware in advance and agreed to have their child in the classroom, Barto said, in responding to a question.

To Kelley Duppes, the prospect of how to make lesson plans that would anticipate such topics is head spinning.

“I can’t believe being a teacher trying to create a curriculum around this,” said Duppes, the father of three young children.

The bill stipulates that parents must have access to the lesson plans at least two weeks in advance of it being presented in class. It also sets out guidelines for how sex-education curricula are developed, including notice of public hearings, and a 60-day review period before any school-board action can be taken.

In a separate move, members of the Legislature’s LGBTQ Caucus also called on Ducey to get out his veto pen.

Rep. Cesar Chavez, D-Phoenix and chair of the caucus, said SB 1456 has a clear motive: “(To) intimidate and frustrate school districts into not providing sex education at all.”

Chavez, who is gay, said the opt-in requirement is divisive.

“For the parent of a child like me to have to opt in automatically assumes that your sexual orientation, your gender identity or expression, is immoral,” Chavez said in a statement.

“When we repealed the ‘No Promo Homo’ law with broad bipartisan support, our goal was to remove the target from the backs of LGBTQ kids in our schools. If Governor Ducey signs this bill, he’s putting it right back on.”

SB 1456 passed the Legislature along partisan lines, with Republicans in support and Democrats opposed.

Ducey has until Tuesday to sign or veto the bill. He also could let it become law without his signature.

His office did not respond to requests on how the governor views the bill, given his support for the repeal in 2019.