ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.Obamacare & Abstinance-Only Sexual Education

29 2308
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,233 posts
1,245

There are three problems with the bills passed by Congress:
1. Representatives are not required to read an entire bill before voting it into law.
Here's a bill that would require politicians to read bills in their entirety.
2. Compromises - When democrats want one thing, and republicans want another, they will often compromise. Democrats will be allowed to pass law A, but in return they must also add Law B to a bill, or else they wont receive republican votes.
3. Federal bills are allowed to contain multiple subjects. Read more about the Single Subject Rule here.

This thread is not about Obamacare as a whole, but Abstinence- Only Education. The merits of socialized healthcare should be discussed elsewhere.

Hidden inside the Affordable Care Act is a provision that demands a return of Abstinence-Only Sex programs in public secondary education. This provision was added by a republican. There's no doubt in my mind that this republican would have voted against the bill had they not pandered to their desire.

To make matters worse, some states have passed laws to help enforce this program!

At the same time, a number of states â" Texas, Tennessee, and Wisconsin among them â" are launching aggressive legislative efforts to promote abstinence-only education. In Tennessee, for instance, a bill that passed the house and senate in April 2012 specifies that teachers must "exclusively and emphatically" endorse abstinence, or face a $500 fine. The bill stipulates that contraceptives may be discussed only as an inferior means of preventing pregnancy and disease. The bill also allows parents to sue public school teachers and staff for allowing students to engage in what is bizarrely termed "gateway sexual behavior" â" such as holding hands or hugging.


Did you catch that last part?

The bill also allows parents to sue public school teachers and staff for allowing students to engage in what is bizarrely termed "gateway sexual behavior" â" such as holding hands or hugging.


IT'S ILLEGAL FOR TEACHERS TO ALLOW TEENAGERS TO HUG AND HOLD HANDS IN SCHOOL! I need say no more.
  • 29 Replies
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,233 posts
1,245
BRAAINZz
offline
BRAAINZz
797 posts
105

This is just stupid and needs to be repealed immediately. They should be able to engage in holding hands! I'm serious, this is quite the large amount of bull**** to take in. Making hugging and other innocent activities to express love is just plain out dumb.

Basically all this does is make sure that teenagers leave their secondary education unknowing about the many things that are out there. They won't be taught about STDs, proper protection, or even what to do.

I also don't see what will be achieved by this. I really hope that generation Y isn't dumb enough to accept whatever crap is shoved down their throats. I really hope for my generation.

IT'S ILLEGAL FOR TEACHERS TO ALLOW TEENAGERS TO HUG AND HOLD HANDS IN SCHOOL! I need say no more.


Somewhat related, in my school you can see guys (sometimes girl) touching other parts of the fairer sex. Canada.
Santi_
offline
Santi_
2,418 posts
0

Well, it seems to be occuring more widespread over the country. I was taught similar "abstinence-only" as it was referred to, within school.
As well as two cousins in Georgia, and one in New York.

As far as I know, hugging or most physical contact with other students at my high school leads to suspension. At the middle school I used to go to, teachers explained to the class that the "no hugging policy" was to "save time" or some other bs. I can understand that showing affection in more drastic terms such as cuddling and kissing can be distractive (not that some still achieve it), but here it's a little extreme.

nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,457 posts
21,845

Like parents will actually bother to sue the school. What a stupid clause by a morally judgmental politician.

Krill11
offline
Krill11
99 posts
1,185

Ooookay, that is a "little bit" extreme. The government should know that this is definitely going to come back to bite them. The schools are funded by the government; therefore they are setting themselves up for big sues.

How on earth could that be made legal? Kids are going to do things that they should not, no matter of the strict rules or the enforcement afterword. And it really should be the parents that talk to kids about abstinence, but then again, I guess that there should be a CLASS about it. That isn't much of a threat anyway, at least not for the kids. And then you will have the professional sue-erâs that will tell their kids to kiss every one of the opposite sex, just so that they can get doe. Wow, this countryâs government really doesnât need to control everythingâ¦â¦

The concept is good, but the going about it is absolutely horrid. I believe in abstinence, but really? Holding hands is outlawed in schools? And a lot of hugs arenât even hugs of affection, just of friendship.

~Krill11

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,407 posts
14,245

This is not only stupid, but also dangerous as it shows that religious fundamentalists are still trying to find ways to influence children through school as much as possible; and we all know this is bad.

I find the Guardian article very interesting and pertinent. What is more to say than that which is written in there? I really like the conclusion:

Empathy comes from understanding, not from indoctrination in stereotypes. In spite of what the "new puritans" are telling us, the path to virtue passes through knowledge, not blind obedience.

You may or may not be for abstinence, but one thing is clear: the students need to choose abstinence, and for that they need to know about what they're dealing with.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,742 posts
3,195

Honestly, I've pretty much run dry on any sort of hope for people. It's all so, so obvious. The data is there, but people don't ever think, they just follow what they've blindly been told or believe without ever questioning it. Clogging up the system and forcing conflicting and harmful additions to be made in laws and bills simply because they're as mature as a 4 year old shows why we have all these issues.

Learn to work together, and do something that works, instead of raging when what is wanted isn't what's possible at the moment, or isn't going to work. Congress is basically a bunch of toddlers whining at each other and picking sides while fighting over some broken toys.

...Sorry for the rant. On to the subject specifically.

The bill stipulates that contraceptives may be discussed only as an inferior means of preventing pregnancy and disease.


Not only is this a flat out lie, it's dangerous. Contraceptives have time and time and time again proven to be the most effective way of preventing pregnancies in a population. People have sex. That's what we do. Acting like people are going to not simply because you tell them abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancy is naive and fails to account for human nature.

The bill also allows parents to sue public school teachers and staff for allowing students to engage in what is bizarrely termed "gateway sexual behavior" ��" such as holding hands or hugging.


Gateway sexual behavior huh. Well, in that case, let's gouge out everyone's eyes, that way there won't be a problem with revealing clothing, which is arguably a much more defined issue in teen pregnancies.
Uysername
offline
Uysername
72 posts
0

This is way too retarded not to be repealed.

The bill also allows parents to sue public school teachers and staff for allowing students to engage in what is bizarrely termed "gateway sexual behavior" �" such as holding hands or hugging.


Actually, wait. It's just the right amount.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,233 posts
1,245

Learn to work together, and do something that works, instead of raging when what is wanted isn't what's possible at the moment, or isn't going to work. Congress is basically a bunch of toddlers whining at each other and picking sides while fighting over some broken toys.


It's hard for both sides to work together on creating a well structured bill because both sides often disagree with each other. The only way they can work with each other is to compromise. Democrats get A (such as Obamacare), Republicans get B (such as Abstinence-Only Education). I believe the issue isn't so much that they need to work together, I think the issue is that they compromise. They don't vote for bills they feel reflect their views as a whole, they vote for bills in which they can achieve their own personal agenda no matter what the price, even if it means supporting laws that go against their views.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,787 posts
300

Democrats get A (such as Obamacare),


Strictly speaking Obamacare in and of itself was a big compromise. Even without abstinence only shoehorned in. So basically the Democrats got a compromised compromise.
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,532 posts
2,155

ahh...I figured texas would be in on this. before you guys get angry at texas republicans, let me tell you that:

1. they stated in one of their documents that they oppose critical thinking skils (they would've put something more subtle in...if they were thinking critically)

2. They believe in enforcing the fixed beliefs passed from parents to children (christian only of course).

thank you backward thinking religious fanatics for allowing the U.S. to regress back another few years.

-Blade

Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,532 posts
2,155

sorry for DP, but this is more back to the point:

I'm glad that we were able to get obamacare to work, but this is pretty bad that we have to put even more people on this earth because of a compromise. abstinence education just doesn't work. teenagers are mindless, horny, eating machines (I can vouch for that personally). they won't listen to things that stop them from enjoying life at that age, which was why contraceptives was such a great idea, so they can enjoy life without having to be thrown the burden of huge responsibility when they clearly aren't ready for it. I know I should have more faith in humanity, but after seeing stuff like this, I doubt that we will advance in technology unless it involves a new smartphone.

-Blade

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,787 posts
300

ahh...I figured texas would be in on this. before you guys get angry at texas republicans, let me tell you that:

1. they stated in one of their documents that they oppose critical thinking skils (they would've put something more subtle in...if they were thinking critically)

2. They believe in enforcing the fixed beliefs passed from parents to children (christian only of course).

thank you backward thinking religious fanatics for allowing the U.S. to regress back another few years.


Not that surprising when considering what a culmination of research has come up with.

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
The published study,
Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes
Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact


Important to note the authors do not posit an independent direct causal connection between low I.Q. and more reactionary attitudes towards race and homosexuality.
CuirassPolisher
offline
CuirassPolisher
31 posts
970

It occurs to me that this provision could easily lead to another Scopes Trial, if teachers can be fined for teaching about contraceptives. It is simply horrifying how desperately some politicians seek to reverse decades of social progress to force their outdated, simplistic values on others.

zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,674 posts
165

they stated in one of their documents that they oppose critical thinking skils (they would've put something more subtle in...if they were thinking critically)



I literally wept litelly when I read this...

Well, what do you think you'll get when you vote a bunch of middle-aged, heavily religious white men into office?
Showing 1-15 of 29