Dueling Sex-Ed Bills in South Dakota

The last few months, South Dakota's been having a bit of a scuffle that's sort of like ours. Some parents in Sioux Falls started complaining a while back about the sex education classes, the books they use, all the usual stuff. They're a little bit more conservative community than we are, and the local officials tried to negotiate with the complainers, but then they kept pushing the line. First they don't like this, so the school district agrees and takes this out. Then they don't like that, so the school dstrict takes that out. Then it's something else -- these guys would benefit, it sounds like, from a process more like ours, where community members review the materials before they go into the schools. Much better than making deals and trying to adjust things after the fact.

I have been following the story for a few months, but not reporting on it, because it's kind of like a lot of other places. We're not the only county in the country, y'know, that's up to their elbows in this stuff.

Anyway, now it's up in the South Dakota state legislature, and it's getting kind of interesting. They've got dueling-sex-ed bills

You know how politicians are. They don't want to be trapped between a rock and a hard place -- they don't want to support abstinence-only education partly because, well, people don't want that, really, but they don't want to appear to be against abstinence-only classes, because ... believe it or not, there are nutty people out there who will misconstrue your position. Why, even TeachTheFacts.org has been described as a "promoting promiscuity," because we think students deserve something more than a brusque no-no and a slap across the cheek in response to their curiosity about sex. Like, maybe ... answers.

So now, with that rock and that hard place looming, South Dakota state legislators are considering the one thing that gets them off the hook, and that is ... pass the responsibility back to the local level.

And that probably makes sense. When you've got a whole town that wants something, like, say, ignorance-only education, then, who's to say they can't have it? But if folks in another town want their kids to learn something in school, you know, you might as well let them go ahead and learn, and not try to pass a law against it.

I mean, there is a certain kind of logic to the idea, don't you agree?

Here's the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, talking about the discussion at a recent legislative coffee, which they call "crackerbarrel" meetings:

... Determining the appropriate role of the state in developing sex education curricula for public schools had legislators debating the definition of local control.

Sen. David Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, drew applause from the audience when he said, "If I had my wish ... I would leave this up to local school districts."

But other legislators say a proposal to establish a state advisory council on sex education curricula largely comprised of parents does not interfere with school boards.

Provisions that would require teaching sexual abstinence also found favor with Rep. Kathy Miles, D-Sioux Falls, who said a sharp rise in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in South Dakota warrants it.

Rep. Phyllis Heineman, R-Sioux Falls, added that while parents might want to discuss contraception with their children, they want public schools to focus on abstinence.

"Many parents tell us, 'You leave that other stuff to us. We want you to talk about abstinence,'" she said.

Rep. Bill Thompson, D-Sioux Falls, however, wondered if an emphasis on abstinence might push young people into early marriages for which they are ill prepared.

Miles backed House Bill 1194, which would prohibit public school personnel from dispensing contraceptives to students or arranging abortions for them.

"I don't want my kid on the pill without my knowledge," she said.

But Thompson decried the trend of all the sex-education legislation to limit information for students.

"Students need more information to make wise decisions about crucial issues in their life," he said. "I see a greater emphasis on clamping down on education. There is less information and more dogma - treating a statement of opinion as fact." Oversight of sex ed burdens legislators

You know what's interesting to me about this? These guys are discussing the issues. There is a difference of opinion, some are more conservative, some are more progressive, but they are actually talking about the pros and cons of various approaches to education.

Right now there are two bills in the South Dakota legislature, addressing the issue of sex-ed. The bill in the state House looks like a kind of classic draconian clampdown that would make sure students were not taught about contraception, and it seems from the debate that a lot of parents are hesitant to go that way. The Senate bill calls for age-appropriate and medically accurate sex education that will, among other things, "Teach students the skills necessary to make responsible decisions about sexuality..." Both bills were introduced the same day.

(There is also an abortion bill, and the one mentioned above that prohibits schools from handing out condoms, which ... well, nobody was going to do that anyway, but you know how politicians are: "I'm against crime and terrorists, and in favor of good, clean family entertainment ...")

You can see there's a collision coming -- one of these education bills is going to survive, and one will fall away.

(Actually, the more I think about it ... wouldn't it be great if they both passed? I would love that, laws both requiring and prohibiting the same thing, yes, that would be really cool.)

The thing that strikes you is that they seem to be having an honest debate about it, coming out in public and discussing the topic, giving points for both sides and listening to one another. It does not appear that one side is just absolutely sure that their way is the only way, and that they must win by any means. I don't think that anybody is saying that the other side wants teens to have promiscuous unprotected sex, or that the schools want to encourage children to experiment sexually... the kind of stuff that has been thrown around here in Maryland. If they are, the papers aren't reporting it -- they're doing this weird thing, writing about the arguments made on both sides, what's being done and how people are reacting.

Well, it's not all real pretty, but we'll continue to follow the story and see how all this comes out.