Proposed sex education bill is misleading the public

Several hundred Coloradans showed up at the Capitol two weeks ago to voice their displeasure over new legislation on teaching human sexuality in public schools.

Testimony on the bill went from 1:30 p.m. until nearly 10 p.m., even as scores of would-be witnesses decided the wait was too long and left. Witnesses were overwhelmingly opposed to the bill.

Some characterized these opponents as fundamentalist Christian know-nothings who hadn’t read the bill and were more opposed to the notion of schools teaching their children about sex, and not focusing on abstinence than anything else. That characterization is false. Among those who appeared were ranchers, physicians, engineers, homeschoolers, retired and current public school officials, lawyers, pastors and, wait for it, registered Democrats. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU also made an appearance (in favor of the bill, of course).

Having read the bill and listened to both its proponents and opponents, three key issues are clear.

One, proponents’ claims that the bill clearly permits parents to opt out their children from the teaching standards is cynical at worst, misleading at best.

The bill categorizes human sexuality into four topics, then says that human sexuality instruction occurs when two or more of the topics are presented. As a result, when a teacher is presenting only the second topic, consisting of “sexual orientation, sexuality or sexual activity,” the teacher is not — under the terms of the bill — providing “human sexuality instruction.”

This is not only bizarre, it’s also deeply misleading. Moreover, the bill asserts that parents need not be notified about any “programming” dealing with “gender, gender expression, sexual orientation or healthy relationships” when it occurs “outside the context of human sexuality instruction.” How can these topics be taught at school, yet occur outside the context of human sexuality instruction?” Any parent would feel hoodwinked by these linguistic gymnastics, and the sponsors should feel ashamed to have included them. Don’t be fooled by those who say that parents can simply opt out.

Two, the bill will leave school districts and teachers open to litigation. How so? Most bills proposed in the General Assembly contain a section of definitions, where key terms are spelled out. For this bill, one key term is “healthy relationships.” It appears nine times, and school districts that adopt the bill are specifically mandated to “promote the development of safe and healthy relationships.” Yet this key term is never defined. It cannot refer merely to relationships that are consensual, free from abuse and drugs and so on, because it is specifically distinguished from them. So what are they, exactly? We’re never told. School districts and teachers that adopt the program will be legally accountable to fulfill its mandates — but how is a teacher supposed to know that he or she is doing so when a key term is left undefined?

Three, the bill demands a takeit-or-leave-it approach that violates the spirit of Colorado’s tradition of local control in education. In testimony, bill sponsors explained that no Colorado school (traditional public or charter) will be required to teach human sexuality — but if a school wants to teach about sex at all, it must employ the dogma found in House Bill 1032. Any school attempting to teach youth about sex — for example, explaining reproduction from a purely biological or scientific point of view — will be subject to legal jeopardy and sanction under the terms of this bill. Really? Is this what Democrats mean when they talk about tolerance?

To be sure, there are many other problems with the legislation, but consider this: According to the National Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Colorado ranks well below the national average for sexually transmitted infections. The same is true for our rate of teen births (as even the bill sponsors recognize). Put another way, research suggests we don’t need a bill at this time, especially one as fatally flawed as 1032.

At a time when 75 percent of our high school students and 69 percent of our eighth graders do not meet grade expectations in science (and other subjects fare little better), spending a million dollars a year to import an ACLU and Planned Parenthood scheme with flaws too numerous to recount seems like a real waste of time and money. We must get our educational priorities right.

I encourage the bill sponsors to recognize the current bill is not ready for prime time and withdraw it, so they might correct its many flaws and have time to more fully take into account the views of the people who make Colorado

great.