“The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations,” wrote Supreme Court Justice James Clark McReynolds in the 1925 Pierce v. Society of Sisters decision. The Court unanimously concluded that the Oregon law abolishing private schools “unreasonably interfere[d] with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children.”
To defend this very liberty, more than 300 parents, students, and their advocates testified until midnight Wednesday against House Bill 1032. The committee nevertheless chose to abrogate the rights of parents to direct their children’s upbringing and education.
Since 2013, the state has prescribed a sex education curriculum but has allowed public charter schools and some traditional public schools to choose alternative curricula that respect the concerns and priorities of parents and students. These schools focus on sexual risk avoidance such as delaying sex until adulthood, having healthy age-appropriate relationships and respect for self and others.
Research shows that teens who abstain from sex until they are at least 18 years old are less likely to be expelled or drop out from school and are more likely to enroll in and graduate from college. Also, individuals who have fewer sexual partners before marriage report higher marital satisfaction and a lower likelihood of divorce. The risks of contracting a disease and becoming pregnant are also higher among sexually active teens.
For this reason, some parents choose schools that primarily emphasize sexual risk avoidance. They may soon lose that choice. House Bill 1032 revokes the ability of charter schools to offer such programs. Charter schools would have to choose between adopting the state-mandated program opposed by their parents, offering no sex education program, breaking the law, or closing their doors.
House Bill 1032 goes even further by explicitly forbidding sex education programs from stigmatizing unhealthy decisions. The bill would also force teachers to apply false moral equivalence when discussing abortion and adoption. Even people who support legalized abortion recognize that making an adoption plan for a child is at least somewhat preferable to putting her into an early grave.
Additionally, the bill also dictates that sex education programs include the “sexual experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender individuals” regardless of whether the information is desired by parents and students. Schools and districts that do not want to wade into political issues like transgenderism may opt not to teach sex education at all. Students would miss out on the biology of reproduction and instruction about healthy choices, respectful relationships, consent, and other social and personal skills.
Proponents of the bill point out that parents can opt their students out of the state-prescribed sex education program — always a fun prospect for kids who want to blend in — but this misses the point. The bill would prevent parents from opting into alternative programs or choosing a charter school that has such a program. Moreover, HB 1032 states that parents need not be notified about “programming on gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, or healthy relationships that occurs outside the context of human sexuality instruction.” Why wouldn’t a school notify parents when teaching about sexual issues? Concealment would suggest indoctrination, would it not?
Parents who support the state-mandated sex education curriculum have plenty of options. Why are lawmakers discriminating against parents and students who want something different?
Parents’ concerns fell on deaf ears Wednesday night when the committee voted to advance the bill. Perhaps lawmakers should dispense with the term “hearing” and the pretense that people are actually heard. The vote was a foregone conclusion. Their mind was made up; a child is merely a creature of the state.
Krista Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
