At the state Capitol right now, lawmakers are debating a proposed law that would require schools that teach sex education to offer comprehensive information, not just an abstinence-only curriculum or offerings that exclude LGBTQ kids.
It’s basically sex education for all — with the full range of information provided, for heterosexuals, LGBTQ people, or whomever. If options for what to do about a pregnancy are discussed, abortion information would have to be included.
The bill is sending the many Republicans, as well as loud elements of the conservative underworld, into a fury.
Here’s a recent sample of the fury, taken from KVOR’s Jeff Crank Show last weekend. Crank is a longtime conservative operative, who ran for Congress in 2006, losing to in a vicious primary to U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn.
Crank is talking to State Rep. Paul Lundeen of Colorado Springs.
CRANK: Well, it is. […] I think what you were saying is – to sum it up –this is radical! This is radical.
LUNDEEN: Yeah, this particular movement is –, yeah. […]
CRANK: Yeah, it’s a radical departure from where we’ve been. […]
LUNDEEN: […]So, that’s one of my biggest concerns, is, the way this thing is written, it’s vague enough to be applied to very, very young children. [Editor’s note: It states that information should be “age-appropriate.”]
CRANK: […] This is an indoctrination bill. But let’s be clear. And, obviously, we’re on the radio, so we’ve got to be a little careful and I know that that is one of the challenges in all of this. What are those specific ideas? What is this bill trying to force and trying indoctrinate on? It’s not – because this is a point that [producer of the show] Ashley made. You know, when she went to high school, when you and I went to high school, it was Reproductive Health Education. It talked about body parts, how they work, you know, feminine hygiene products and their use – things that were actually health related and useful. Now, we’re talking about ‘How To’ manuals! Right?
LUNDEEN: Right. Right.
CRANK: Okay, so what are those specific things — those specific ideas that they’re trying to get across to these kids?
LUNDEEN: […] Well just let me read from the bill. […] “It’s important for youth to learn about sex and sexuality in the context of healthy relationships.” […] Well that’s part of what you were just talking about. But then it goes beyond just physiology and starts talking about attitudes, and so forth. “Comprehensive Human Sexuality Education […] teaches youth about consent, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and the hallmarks of safe and healthy relationships.” And here’s where it starts to get more challenging. “It also teaches youth about the different relationship models they and their peers may engage in.” –and for this very permissive language, it’s encouraging language — “including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender peers and how to be safe and a healthy partner in a relationship.”
[…] It specifically disallows the ability to talk about tenets that come from a religious tradition, or tenets that come from more accepted, societally normative – it specifically rejects previously understood and accepted norms. […]
CRANK: As you were reading that, something struck me. You said, “These – the different kinds of relationships that kids […] may engage in.” Okay. That gives permission! Right?
CRANK: […] This is the government telling my kids, “Hey, it’s okay if you go and engage in any of these. Screw your parents! Screw your pastor! Forget all the things that you’ve been taught. You may engage in these things, if you so choose.” Is that the way it’s written?
LUNDEEN: That’s exactly [correct]. […] This is essentially becoming a state-driven orthodoxy that is very, very challenging. And I think some – at a very philosophical level – some individuals could argue that this is essentially, in a way, establishment of religion by the state, which is exactly what the First Amendment says not to do!
CRANK: Of course it is, Paul. […] This is a terrible bill. We’ve got to everything we can to fight against it.