October 12, 2005 at 4:01 pm #1143AnonymousInactive
Explicitness of material could prompt an exodus from Santa Ana schools
By [b:yguefy6e]Rosemarie Avila[/b:yguefy6e]
Santa Ana Unified School District board member
The flood gates have opened, the land is polluted, and families will be leaving.
I am not talking about Hurricane Katrina. This is quite a different storm brewing: sex education in Santa Ana. This storm nevertheless will cause great destruction and take many years to overcome. There will be those who refuse to get out, who will not leave, and will have to be rescued later.
I cannot overstate the seriousness of the matter. Sex is the glue of society, drawing us together into nurturing family units, the cornerstone of civilization.
The Santa Ana Unified School District board voted 4-1 late last month to teach “Comprehensive Sex Education.” It sounds harmless, but I would consider it a category 5. Families are urged to prepare.
Comprehensive Sex Education is not what it seems. First, it is not comprehensive; second, it is not about sex; and third, it is not education. A common misconception is that Comprehensive Sex Education is nothing more than abstinence education plus contraceptive instruction. This is a smokescreen.
Board members said our teens need more sex education, and I agree. Our teenagers need sex education. The Latino community has high rates of teen pregnancy. America is experiencing an epidemic. More people are more apt to get a sexually transmitted disease or infection than the common cold. With the tremendous media bombardment of sexual images, adults have to speak to their young people about sexual activity.
Santa Ana schools, as most districts do, use supplemental materials to teach sex education. Health textbooks skim over sex education. Sex education is not required by state law, and textbook publishers do not want to get caught in the crossfire.
Beyond a basic health textbook, Santa Ana uses the Red Cross AIDS/HIV prevention program, which teaches contraception. In other lessons, our teens are asked to make charts of contraceptive methods, including the costs, effectiveness, advantages and disadvantages. And, complying with state law, teens are taught that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent STDs and unintended pregnancies.
So what is the beef? If Santa Ana has abstinence and contraception education, what new kind of sex-education program did the board members vote in? The SIECUS guidelines, or “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” by the Sexual Information and Education Council for the United States, is written by Planned Parenthood and others.
Most speakers at our most recent board meeting were from Planned Parenthood, which promotes SIECUS. Last year, we had advocates for Comprehensive Sex Education come to the board. They said they were for “Abstinence Plus.” Sounds harmless. Board members were given a copy of the SIECUS guidelines and requested that the district implement the guidelines. What an eye opener!
As mentioned earlier, Comprehensive Sex Education is not comprehensive. It rarely, if ever, mentions marriage or family relationships. It does not deal with the emotional and psychological aspects of sexual activity. It downplays the risks of contraceptives, leaving out up-to-date information. Condoms and other forms of contraceptives do not protect against the three most prevalent Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), for instance, Human Papilloma Virus produces 6 million new cases every year; 93 percent to 99 percent of cervical cancer is caused by HPV.
Shockingly, the SIECUS Guidelines teach teens that there are four kinds of sexual practices to choose from: oral, anal, mutual masturbation and vaginal sexual intercourse. Students are to choose from these four and negotiate with their partners. Teens are told that the use of erotic videos, sexual fantasies and taking showers together will increase their sexual pleasure. This is sex education?
Comprehensive Sex Education is hardly education. Teens are told that their parents’ views are based on their culture or religion, but that they, the teens, are to make their own choice as to how they want to fulfill their sexuality. Sexual pleasure, not sexual responsibility, is the goal.
The goal of education should be to help teens make responsible choices. Because the physical, emotional and psychological consequences are not taught, when things go wrong teens and parents are left holding the bag while Planned Parenthood smiles all the way to the bank.
If Santa Ana implements the SIECUS Guidelines in December as planned, the present storm will grow to catastrophic proportions, and images of lines of cars evacuating will also occur as we will see parents pulling their children out of these lascivious classes. It then will be up to churches, synagogues, and community groups to take in these refugees and teach real sex education.October 12, 2005 at 10:33 pm #5469About Catholics TeamKeymaster
Very interesting indeed. I plan on looking this up in a few minutes.
I was talking with my wife a few weeks ago. We do not have any children yet, but we often think of what things will be like when we do.
I said that I think our kids will the few that get pulled out of class when the sex-ed part comes around because I want our children to learn it from a morally grounded Catholic point of view, not simply a scientific matter of fact way.
I also don’t want my kids to have the whole “wear a condom!” thing shoved down their throats by the public schools. However, we would talk to them about these things and show them what’s wrong and why.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.