I testified at this hearing as a proponent of the bill. What threw me off when I got to the hearing, was the opposition...the homeschoolers. I find myself in the precarious position of being both a homeschooler, and a parent of a publicly schooled freshman. (My son was homeschooled until Jr. High)I can relate entirely to the belief system of homeschoolers opposing the government inteference of telling us HOW to teach what we teach. That cannot be. But for our public schools, what cannot be is the law as it stands; without the clarifications that this bill provides, and the present reality of variations from district to district, our schools, intentionally or unintentionally, allow programs into our schools that have religion as their premise. Explore the text of abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula and what you will find is pure and simple. You will find intolerance to its' greatest extent - intolerance of single-parent households, intolerance of those single parents having a sexual relationship, intolerance of homosexuality, intolerance of sexuality at all, until married of course, intolerance of prevention of conception (married or not). You will find skewed statistics and facts that are scientifically UNfounded. You will find sexual stereotypes, and your children will be asked to sign pledges - and join "clubs" . When you research the sources of the information compiled in the text, you will find RELIGIOUSLY, POLITICALLY motivated organizations. Dr. Miller was 100% accurate in his statement that our children are used as "fodder in an idealogical debate".
P.S. I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Miller after the hearing, and my son was the recipient of the condoms used in his efforts to support Comprehensive Sex Ed. As this method has already been taught in our home, my hopes are that IF my son does not choose abstinence, he will choose SAFETY. He knows the decision is his to make, and has been given the information to make educated decisions.

...the present reality of variations from district to district, our schools, intentionally or unintentionally, allow programs into our schools that have religion as their premise...

But Tracey, what's wrong with variation from town to town? Is there a reason sex ed must be the same in downtown Providence as in Barrington or Portsmouth? Are we so confident in standardized sex ed that parents (who can affect a school district much more than they can the state government) must be removed from the equation?

I'm also not sure about your fears that we might "allow programs into our schools that have religion as their premise." Doing so is inevitable. Handing out condoms is based on the premise that Catholic teachings about sexuality (for example) are incorrect. There are balances to be struck, of course (which is one reason that the district-by-district decision making is important), but let's not pretend that the balance is between objectivity and bias.

Such organizations as Planned Parenthood contribute to the secular sex ed curriculum, and they stand to gain both ideologically and financially from an increase of a particular approach to life and sexuality.

"Handing out condoms is based on the premise that Catholic teachings about sexuality (for example) are incorrect. There are balances to be struck, of course (which is one reason that the district-by-district decision making is important), but let's not pretend that the balance is between objectivity and bias."

Catholic teachings belong in the Catholic church. Christian teachings belong in the Christian schools, Judaism belongs in the Hebrew schools. I do not want my children being taught theologically, which is why they are in the public schools. (Cost is another factor.) Our family life, whatever it may be, is ours, not to be imposed upon with someone else's value system. If sex ed is to be taught, as the STATE law says is must, then it should be standardized with accurate, science based information, so as to assure nonbiased teachings, district by district. Such as it is with Math, and English, etc. As difficult as the subject may be to teach,Barrington does not differ from Providence in presenting kids with the facts. Facts will not differentiate from one district to the next, one state to the next. They all deserve the same facts. Values are best left to the home! As they used to say on Dragnet "Just the facts, ma'am."
I do not propose handing out condoms in the schools...However, if that is what it takes to keep a sexually active adolescent safe because of a choice they make, than that safety must be the focus. I propose giving them the facts, (based on science)with the focus being on abstinence, and the lessons based on reality,(and science) and how to stay safe in a world full of dangers. Dangers come in all shapes and sizes, and some folks believe they can "save" the world by imposing their methods based on their religion. How does that repect another human being? I propose what Rep. Dennigan proposed - NO RELIGION IN THE SCHOOLS! (The exception being private school,homeschool, or parochial school for the obvious reasons - their education is private.)I propose teaching TOLERANCE and respect with truth, not intolerance and disrespect with lies.
I have seen firsthand the misleading methods these religious organizations use to get themselves in the door of the public schools. I have seen firsthand the misleading information they try to impose upon the children. It is nothing less than an attempt to indoctrinate to their way of life. I do not choose to have my children, or myself, imposed upon in this way. This religious, political war doesn't belong in the public schools, and it seems that only state laws will enforce that code. Sad, but true.
Again, our country's founding in based on the SEPARATION of Church and State. We are NOT a Christian nation, but a nation created on diversity.

P.S. If you believe that the Catholic teachings are "safe" in some way, from the Evangelical teachings...you may want to take a closer look. The Catholics are also viewed as Pagans, for honoring The Virgin Mary and the Saints, and they, in addition to countless others, need to be "saved" but for the errors of their ways.

Don't you see a contradiction, Tracey, between this:

I propose teaching TOLERANCE and respect with truth, not intolerance and disrespect with lies.

And this:

NO RELIGION IN THE SCHOOLS!

It seems to me implicit in your statements that religion is tantamount to lies — or, at the most mild, is irrelevant to children's lives and well-being. That's fine for you to believe, and I do agree that such views ought to be respected, but nonetheless, they are ultimately religious views. For example, from my perspective, your statement about folks who "believe they can 'save' the world by imposing their methods" sounds an awful lot like those who wish to standardize secular sex ed at the state level in order to save children from a dangerous world.

I agree that public school education ought to focus on facts, but there is nothing in science that indicates one way or another whether it is morally right to use condoms. Once a teacher tells students "if you're going to have sex, you should use a condom," he or she is advocating a particular worldview to the exclusion of others. Somehow I suspect that you'd object to the schools' standards requiring teachers to inform the students that some people believe condom use presents problems for their immortal souls.

I never perceived my thoughts, or my religion to be imposed on another, by trying to be accepting and tolerant of people and their differences, nor do I happen to see these as religious characteristics. I do not see truth and tolerance to be unimportant or irrelevant to anyone. I do not even begin to suggest that religion, ANYONE'S, is based on lies, but I do not want values and religious beliefs presented to my children as if they are the facts. What I stated was that if you were to look at an abstinence-only-until-married curriculum, you will find nothing there that can be scientifically validated. The information being presented is not fact, but opinion. It stinks of intolerance to human beings who do not believe the same things, and is presented by politically, religiously motivated people. If they are so firmly rooted in their beliefs, what would be the harm in the truth - scientifically researched information. It is based on religious views, and that can't be scientifically researched, can it? There is nothing wrong with telling an adolescent the CORRECT information about condom failure rates, as well as the protective factors. There is something wrong in proposing ONE RIGHT WAY to be a decent human being. This is ideaology, and theology, and it has no place in the public schools. As for a teacher informing kids that some people see something wrong with condom usage, that is presenting a religious view - IT BELONGS IN THE HOME, NOT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The Bible doesn't say love your neighbor, as long as he sees things the same as you. It says love your neighbor. Teaching kids factual information shows respect for them, which in turn allows them to become respectful of themselves.
I do not wish to judge someone else as "in need of being saved" or that my beliefs can do that for them. Nor do I wish to have someone judge me, or mine, as being "in need of being saved", and that their ideas are what will "save". Aren't your religious views your own private affair? Mine are. I don't see a place for religion in the public schools. "Just the facts ma'am."

In addition, Justin, you're right about not finding any scientific info that tells us whether it is morally right or wrong to use a condom. Science and morals are two different things. Public schools are left to teach facts based on science, not values based on religion. This applies whether the subject be secular Math, secular English, or secular Sex Ed.

...if you were to look at an abstinence-only-until-married curriculum, you will find nothing there that can be scientifically validated.

I've actually done a little research on this question, and the truth of the matter is that some curricula state things that might be debatable, and a couple do present data that is spun so much as to be wrong. But your assertion is vastly (vastly) overstated. At any rate, the central claim of abstinence-only education is absolutely scientifically validated: no sex, no pregancy and no sexual disease.

Aren't your religious views your own private affair?

Goodness, no! (I'm trying to be a writer, after all.) I've said similar things already, but at the risk of repeating myself: your statement itself contains religious underpinnings. It presumes that religion is little more than style; obviously, if the question of God's nature is important and interwoven with the question of the nature of reality, it would be a tremendous gap to deprive public school students of any sort of background thinking about Him, much more profound a gap, I'd suggest, than missing out on Calculus.

But that's an expanded topic. The point of sex ed, as supporters such as yourself see it, is to tell children what they should do under given circumstances. That's imposition of morality. I'm not saying it's improper, but again, let's get off the ferris wheel of false assertions of "just the facts."

"and the truth of the matter is that some curricula state things that might be debatable, and a couple do present data that is spun so much as to be wrong. But your assertion is vastly (vastly) overstated. At any rate, the central claim of abstinence-only education is absolutely scientifically validated: no sex, no pregancy and no sexual disease."

MOST (if not all) abstinence-only-until-marriage educators present data that is spun. Information that is not just debatable, but blatantly false. Why should our children be misled with "spin" and false information anyway?? I do not believe I am overstating the matter at all! Don't just do research on the issue, get your hands on the curriculum. Even our most ignorant can make the connection between abstinence and no disease or pregnancy! And, by God, if that was all that they stated, I'd be happy! There would be the scientific truth! It's the rest of the nonsense, and the lies that are being presented as facts that is the problem. But they do seem incapable of sticking to that "central claim", and they wouldn't need curriculum filled with "spin" to make such simple assertions. That is why the goal needs to be abstinence plus, better known as Comprehensive Sex Ed. We need programs that teach, not "preach." That's best left in the churches or in the homes. In a public school, they should be learning tolerance of ALL, no matter the differences, not condemnation and isolation because of differences. This is what creates hatred, hostility, and anger.
" The point of sex ed, as supporters such as yourself see it, is to tell children what they should do under given circumstances. That's imposition of morality."
No, that's knowledge of safety, knowledge of consequence of actions, and responsibility. If those who have been told to be abstinent, stay abstinent, Halleluyah! But, if some should falter from the "instructions" they've been given, as human beings have been known to do, let them be safe. There is NO evidence that people who are taught about contraception, or disease prevention are more likely to initiate sex at an earlier age than those who have "vowed" abstinence. But there is question of those who break their "pledges" having a higher pregnancy rate. Now why would that be? Let's do the Math...from a standardized viewpoint!

There is NO evidence that people who are taught about contraception, or disease prevention are more likely to initiate sex at an earlier age than those who have "vowed" abstinence. But there is question of those who break their "pledges" having a higher pregnancy rate.

Not true (see particularly here. Look at Britain, with its condoms and morning-after pills for teens without parental notification; they're having huge problems.

If you've got contrary evidence, I'd be happy to look at it.

Forgive me, Justin, "pledges" do appear to delay the onset of initiation of activity, but it does appear that your figures are "spin". 60% of pledgers break their vow with only 12% being married. As for those who break the pledge, MOST are ill prepared in preventive measures for both pregnancy and disease transmission.
There also appears to be a lot of confusion in the kids about what abstinence really means. Many, who call themselves virgins, have participated in oral or anal sex. Yet, they're still virgins??!! Of course, we could blame the misunderstanding between intercourse and other acts on Bill Clinton, or we could blame it on the fact that we haven't fully informed the kids.

Following abstract with link, footnotes reputable research organizations such as Guttmacher, Kaiser Foundation, NIH to name a few. Research adbstinence only, and one of the FEW evaluators: Heritage Foundation.

1. Young people who make virginity pledges are more likely than others to be religious suggesting that they may already be committed to delaying sexual activity.
Religious adherence is much stronger in the US than in the United Kingdom. 53% of Americans say that religion is very important in their lives compared to 16% of Britons suggesting that abstinence pledging is unlikely to be well received by most young people in Britain.

http://www.brook.org.uk/contentplain/M6_1_5_abstinence.asp

And yet we have higher pregnancy rates here in the USA!