New Illinois Law Broadens Sex Ed

Should contraception be part of school curriculum?

Last month Illinois legislators passed House Bill 3027, a sex education law permitting teachers to educate students on both contraception and abstinence. While the bill does not make sex ed a requirement in all schools, it does broaden the spectrum for what information is allowed in the curriculum. Prior to the passing, only abstinence education was taught as a way to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

The Associated Press reported that the new protocol allows teachers to incorporate "age-appropriate" and "medically accurate" materials as a way to help teens protect themselves. Parents would be given the option to review the course before deciding whether to allow their child to participate.

Legislators opposed to the law claimed it would have no effect on the incidence of teen pregnancy and STD cases.

What do you think? Should contraception be part of sex education? Would you permit your child to take part in the course?

Paul Dailing June 20, 2011 at 04:48 AM
Just two points then I'm done with this whole thing. A. Correlation does not imply causation. Reasoning 101. If you're going to link the rise in out-of-wedlock births to sex ed classes in public schools (as opposed to the sexual revolution, the creation of the pill, changing gender and sexual roles and the various social upheavals since the 1960s), good luck. B. We're on the Internet. Google "sex ed history" to find the varying and nuanced history of American sexual education going back to the 1913 "Chicago Experiment." Research 101. When a comprehensive history of sex ed in America is three typed words away from you, you don't have much of an excuse not to get your facts first. It's been fun, guys, but I'm out. Later.
David B June 20, 2011 at 09:42 PM
LMAO!!! If some of these responses are just a minuscule measure of the mentality of people as far as sexual education, it's no wonder there's problems!!!
Juvenal June 21, 2011 at 05:45 PM
It appears that either 1)teaching the straw man is big in the journalism schools, or 2)teaching critical reading is not.
Juvenal June 21, 2011 at 05:58 PM
Having sex, and its consequences, is something altogether different from changing your oil or balancing your checkbook or quadratic equations. You say it's OK to "teach all the facts" but evidently have no problem that the only "fact" to be taught on the whole spectrum of morality/abstinence in "oh, and by the way the only way to for sure avoid the bad stuff of sex is abstinence". The whole problem is that the schools and our oh-so-tolerant society seem to think sex can be equated to checkbook balancing and oil-changing. Is there no moral code in this country sufficiently universal that it cannot be taught alongside the nuts and bolts of sex without raising constitutional concerns? If so, that's ridiculous, and if your generation can't even see that side of the argument, that's just sad..... Over and out. the problem with Sex Ed, if it is an appropriate subject for public schools in the first place, is not that the legislated class teaches too many facts, but that it teaches not enough. The divorce between sex and morality which you take as a good simply isn't
Denise Du Vernay June 21, 2011 at 07:59 PM
Every generation blames the one that follows for the ills in society out of some grand tradition of romanticizing the past. But age has nothing to do with morality. Let's just take Newt Gingrich as an example. He is A LOT older than I, and his behavior is much LESS moral than mine. He's on his third marriage, his second and third wives were women he had affairs with while he was married to the previous wife (and his first wife had been his high school math teacher, so there was probably something unsavory there-- just a guess). And while he was married to wife #2 and having sex with future wife #3, he was attacking Bill Clinton for his affair and demanding his resignation. So, you see, immorality knows no age. His ill deed wasn't having all that nasty extramarital sex; it was being deceptive, hypocritical, and hurtful. Not everyone shares your personal moral code. Except for the theoretical idea of the moral nihilist, everyone has morals, following a different moral code. It seems that you think that having sex IN GENERAL is immoral. (How sad). I personally think there's nothing inherently immoral about having sex. I think what you're talking about really is values, which are formed in stages during childhood. Parents and family should do their best to instill their children with the values they hold dear and give them the tools they need to do their best in life. If parents do their jobs well, no amount of sexy videos or sex ed can take that away from a child.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »