Comments on: Capitol Daily Memo: Forcing STDs on children? Really?

By: JBT

JBT — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 02:07:00 +0000

Exactly how would you identify those students you say need 1 on 1 help? Please be specific.

By: Diane Robertson

Diane Robertson — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:46:00 +0000

Where I grew up we started sex-ed in the fourth grade.By high schooling we were putting condoms on bananas. We could also get condoms free from the school nurse and PP a mile away from the high school. Guess what? It didn’t help. STD’s and unwanted pregnancies continued to grow in number, not decrease.More than half of the high school friends that I kept in touch with have been divorced. All this curriculum did was promote promiscuity. I am 100% for this new bill.

Another good reason for this is it protects Utah students from Planned Parenthood programs,The new national sexuality program http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/healthquest/njs-new-sexual-education-standards-make-history and at the international leve, thel CRC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child.

Maybe legislatures promoting more sex education do not know about these, but maybe this is what they want to promote. It is nice to have the Utah House stand up and protect the children of Utah. I hope the Senate will too.

By: David Buer

David Buer — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:37:00 +0000

Actually, they’re a very strong argument for giving 1-on-1 help to those Utah teens who need it. Clearly, the vast majority of Utah teens are not struggling with STDs, making a broad mandate to teach it to everyone unnecessary.

Also, is it possible to attribute those STD numbers directly to the current sex ed curriculum? What about parents’ roles? What about the four districts that already teach abstinence-only? What about the impact that religion and moral teachings outside the school have had?

By: Jan44felt

Jan44felt — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:11:00 +0000

Those Utah STD numbers are good! Quite an argument there for NOT changing current education