Parental permission needed for sex-ed

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

In Arizona, retrogressive GOP paradise.

Arizona parents: You now must give your consent before your child can get any sex education in school.

Arizona legislators last session passed Senate Bill 1309, the "Parents Bill of Rights," which requires parental consent before their child can receive any sexual education in school. Gov. Jan Brewer signed it into law in May. It takes effect Thursday.

The law also mandates Arizona schools to notify parents when materials regarding "sexuality" are presented in non-sex-education classes.

Here's what you need to know about the new law:

How will schools handle the change?

The Arizona Department of Education says it will be up to individual school district governing boards to implement the new law, though the department is notifying them of the change via mail.

In the Sunnyside Unified School District, for example, parents previously could "opt out" if they didn't want their children to be part of the sex-education classes. Now the district will send home forms to get parental consent to opt-in, district spokeswoman Monique Soria said.

An Arizona administrative regulation already requires parents to consent for their child to get sex education in elementary and middle school. Some schools and districts have used opt-in procedures for high schools even though the administrative rule did not require it.

The new law strengthens the administrative rule by including all grade levels and adds the component of parental notification when matters "about sexuality" are presented.

Supporters say

The conservative Center for Arizona Policy says the new law recognizes parents' "fundamental right" to direct the education and upbringing of their children.

From a technical standpoint, a law is much stronger than an administrative rule, said Deborah Sheasby, the center's legal counsel.

"It empowers parents because they are explicitly protected in state law," Sheasby said. "It's a common thing to obtain parental consent. I don't see this as being any greater burden than obtaining consent for a field trip."

Sheasby said she hopes parents pay attention to other rights listed in the new law - their right to review test results and receive report cards, among other things. The law also requires parental consent for children to get mental-health counseling at school, except in emergency situations.

Supporters have also lauded the bill for ensuring government does not intrude on parents' child rearing.

Language in the original bill, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Gray, R-Mesa, prohibited anyone under age 18 from seeking medical treatment, including getting tested and treated for a sexually transmitted disease, without parental consent. In the final version of the measure, the Legislature removed that provision, as well as a provision that would have required parental consent for contraceptive prescriptions. Gray did not return calls or e-mail seeking comment.

Critics say

The Arizona PTA is "completely opposed" to 1309, says Michelle Steinberg, the group's legislative-issues chair. One concern is the requirement that parental notification is required for children to attend non-sex-education classes about sexuality.

"What does that even mean?" Steinberg asked. "When you are in a literature class reading Romeo and Juliet, do you need opt-ins? What worries me is that teachers will shy away from any curriculum that could be in question. It's a very broad statement."

Steinberg said the PTA supports comprehensive, medically accurate sex education that emphasizes disease prevention.

The law "is not a parents' rights piece of legislation. This bill in many ways puts up barriers to real parental involvement and real access."

Health concerns

Dr. Michelle McDonald, chief medical officer for the Pima County Health Department, worries the opt-in provision will create an extra level of paperwork that could get lost and deprive students of important health education.

"My concern, of course, is that this will lead to higher rates of teen pregnancy and STD transmission in young people in our community," she said.

She noted that Arizona has one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates in the nation. It ranks fourth, with 70 pregnancies per 1,000 girls and women ages 15 to 19, according to the nonprofit Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. In 2005 there were 18,100 pregnancies among Arizonans ages 15 to 19, the council says.

The council's data also show Arizona ranking high for its rate of syphilis in young people - 16th in the country in reported cases of primary and secondary syphilis among Arizonans ages 15-19.

Sex education offered in Arizona schools

Public schools in Arizona are not required to teach sex education.

Most states in the country - 35 plus the District of Columbia - mandate that students learn about sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, which causes AIDS, says the Guttmacher Institute, a national nonprofit organization that aims to advance sexual and reproductive health. Arizona does not.

Abstinence must be promoted in any sex-education program in Arizona schools that choose to offer one. A state administrative rule says schools offering sex education must also discuss the consequences of sexual activity, including the possibility of STDs and pregnancy.

State law says educators cannot promote a "homosexual lifestyle," portray "homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle," or "suggest that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex."

House Bill 2361, introduced by Rep, Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, this year, would have required all school districts in Arizona to provide medically accurate and age-appropriate comprehensive sex education, including information about contraception, abstinence, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. The bill failed.

"Unfortunately, Arizona teens aren't getting the information they need to make an informed decision to fight STDs and lower the rate of abortion, and at the same time, Arizona continues to rank last in the nation in education funding," Sinema wrote in an e-mail."

What other states do

Arizona is one of three states with a parental "consent required" or opt-in requirement for sex education, the Guttmacher Institute says. The other two are Utah and Nevada. Most states have an opt-out policy or law, Guttmacher Institute public-policy associate Elizabeth Nash said.

"Really the standard is opt-out," she said. "Parental consent just seems a lot more restrictive."

I am so looking forward to the opportunity to vote Jan Brewer out of office in November. First, that comically retarded law permitting any brain-dead jackass to concealed-carry firearms without any training or licensing. Then SB 1070, giving assholes like Sheriff Joe an excuse to harass brown reasonably-suspicious people; and now this delightfully backward piece of legislation takes effect.

[Gil Hamilton]

Heh, my lab partner is going to come stomping in here cursing Obama for taking Nepalitano away from the state and leaving the house elf up there in Phoenix as governor.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ah sweet Arizona. I am so glad I left thee.

The law also mandates Arizona schools to notify parents when materials regarding "sexuality" are presented in non-sex-education classes.

I can see it now. Biology classes need to notify parents before they talk about hormone cycles, ovulation, or spermiogenesis. Nevermind all the literature that will be excluded from curricula now because of its "sexual" content. Most of Shakespeare, Homer etc. Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, and the Iliad were mandatory reading when I was in school. Same with The Great Gatsby. Oh, and the movies we would watch in german class... like The Goonies (dubbed in german of course) which had a kissing scene and a few sexual puns? Gone.

Honestly I think a large part of this was a backdoor book ban. So much for having Clan of the Cave Bear in the library.

The law also requires parental consent for children to get mental-health counseling at school, except in emergency situations.

Heaven forbid that the student take advantage of free counseling services or have a problem that they dont want their parents to know about. What happens to a gay student who cannot come out to their parents or who is being harassed?

Oh wait...

State law says educators cannot promote a "homosexual lifestyle," portray "homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle," or "suggest that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex."

Yes. Homosexuals are evil! Homosexual sex automatically makes you vulnerable to the HIV, even though there are zero documented lesbian to lesbian transmissions through cunnilingus. Seriously. Zero.

"Unfortunately, Arizona teens aren't getting the information they need to make an informed decision to fight STDs and lower the rate of abortion, and at the same time, Arizona continues to rank last in the nation in education funding," Sinema wrote in an e-mail."

I went to one of the best high schools in the state. However that is only because the majority mormon population of my district values education. That said, when we had sex ed, we were actively lied to. By the time we had this class, the majority of males were already sexually active (at least foreplay if not intercourse).

The guy told us:

1) Condoms and birth control are completely ineffective
2) Homosexuals are the root of AIDS
3) Porn leads to sex crimes.

At this point, I was one of the most ridiculed people in the school, but I gained a measure of respect when I pointedly contradicted this son of a bitch with real statistics. Sex education in AZ could not really be made worse. For fucks sake there are outbreaks of syphilus.

[Themightytom]

I wonder if they can pass a bill in Texas requiring parental consent before discussion of Creation Theory...

Excellent work Arizona, now you don't have to attend school board meetings or pay attention to your kids, the school isn't allowed to teach them anything you don't want them to.

[Guardsman Bass]

Language in the original bill, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Gray, R-Mesa, prohibited anyone under age 18 from seeking medical treatment, including getting tested and treated for a sexually transmitted disease, without parental consent. In the final version of the measure, the Legislature removed that provision, as well as a provision that would have required parental consent for contraceptive prescriptions. Gray did not return calls or e-mail seeking comment.

That's not surprising. Isn't Mesa basically Mormon-Land?

Arizona is one of three states with a parental "consent required" or opt-in requirement for sex education, the Guttmacher Institute says. The other two are Utah and Nevada. Most states have an opt-out policy or law, Guttmacher Institute public-policy associate Elizabeth Nash said.

I should have known. I remember sex education was basically non-existent when I was in public school here in Utah - we got one day in a middle school health class to talk about sex (no discussion of contraception), and literally nothing at the high school level.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's not surprising. Isn't Mesa basically Mormon-Land?

Yes. The city is practically a theocracy, up to and including public transportation not running on sunday.

[Solauren]

You know, on one hand, I have no problem with the idea of permission slips for anything that could be constroversial or annoying for the school to deal with the back-lash of.

i.e Field trips, special assemblies, and even Sex Education.

The reason being, it protects the schools, and teachers, from over-eager/reactive/stupid people going 'but, I did't want little Jane exposed to that! I'm suing for millions!"

However, this has got to be the worse possible application and use of the concept I've ever seen.

[Anguirus]

The title of this thread is slightly misleading. Parental permission required for sex education is nothing new: it was required in Maryland when I was in high school. Frankly, I thought it was required everywhere.

It's the other stuff quoted by Alyrium above that is more disturbing.

[Kanastrous]

I opted out of Maryland public high school sex-ed (middle school, actually, now that I think about it).

There was the option to do your own independent-study project and submit a written report; that plus passing the silly written test that everyone took satisfied the requirement.

It was actually kind of fun. Particularly collecting and drawing the illustrations.

[Vendetta]

State law says educators cannot promote a "homosexual lifestyle," portray "homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle," or "suggest that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex."

Yes. Homosexuals are evil! Homosexual sex automatically makes you vulnerable to the HIV, even though there are zero documented lesbian to lesbian transmissions through cunnilingus. Seriously. Zero.

Though not technically speaking an STD you can get Thrush from cunnilingus.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Until watching Arizona over the past two years, I have not really seen political events triggered which so clearly caused a major political entity to spiral into madness in such short order, with merely the removal of a single person (Napolitano) to cause it all. It really is fascinating to watch; in two years Arizona, starting what it began with the passage of a gay marriage ban in November of 2008, has essentially completed a shft from a reasonably moderate state which actually voted against a gay marriage ban in 2006 or so, into the most regressive, retarded, and fascistic state in the union. It's clear that having a democratic governor was literally the only thing keeping it from swirling the toilet bowl, though I wonder if there were other, deeper factors at work which guaranteed the violence and rapidity with which Arizona would come to fall off the map of civilization. It very impressively went from a place I could even imagine voluntarily moving to into a place I'd think about living in only after better options like Atlanta Georgia had been exhausted. Hell, Alyrium moved from Arizona to Texas and it seems like a prophetically huge improvement in living circumstances, now we've seen this disintegration in full swing.

Though, tactically, tapping Napolitano for a cabinet post was a brilliant move, since it gave us a Teaparty Trial State so the democrats can point, laugh, and show the rest of the country just how bad it will get if they take these goons seriously. Pity it certainly wasn't intentional.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Until watching Arizona over the past two years, I have not really seen political events triggered which so clearly caused a major political entity to spiral into madness in such short order, with merely the removal of a single person (Napolitano) to cause it all.

I saw it coming for a long time. She used her veto in order to keep the crazy-mormon-catholic-fuck-lovechild legislature in check. The 2008 gay marriage ban never should have made it to the ballot. The democrats were basically filibustering it through the end of the day (and thus the legislative session), and the republicans turned off the microphone in violation of the rules and recognized a republican who called the vote to send it to referendum. All the shit that is happening now has basically been the same shit Janet had been blocking for years.

Alyrium moved from Arizona to Texas and it seems like a prophetically huge improvement in living circumstances, now we've seen this disintegration in full swing.

I never thought TX would be less insane than AZ. AZ is what happens when mormons and catholics have a christ-orgy in the state senate.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You know, lets take a look at (almost) the entire law (I am skipping certain legalesee bits, and parts that on their own may be completely unobjectionable), shall we?

RIGHTS
6 ARTICLE 1. PARENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS
7 1-601. Parents' rights protected
8 A. THE LIBERTY OF PARENTS TO DIRECT THE UPBRINGING, EDUCATION, HEALTH
9 CARE AND MENTAL HEALTH OF THEIR CHILDREN IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

In other words, parents own their kids. Let us see what all this means.

...

20 1. THE RIGHT TO DIRECT THE EDUCATION OF THE MINOR CHILD.

Parents now have the right to with-hold information about the world that may be pertinent to their lives from the child. If taken to its logical conclusion with will force schools to teach holocaust denial etc. We shall wee later (I am reading the bill as I write this) if the specific provisions could be construed to do this.

21 2. ALL RIGHTS OF PARENTS IDENTIFIED IN TITLE 15, INCLUDING THE RIGHT
22 TO ACCESS AND REVIEW ALL RECORDS RELATING TO THE MINOR CHILD.

So the parents have a right to access the confidential medical information of the child, including mental health, reproductive health etc. This essentially treats the minor child as a non-person.

24 4. THE RIGHT TO DIRECT THE MORAL OR RELIGIOUS TRAINING OF THE MINOR
25 CHILD.

The right to indoctrinate children and keep them from thinking for themselves. Got it.

26 5. THE RIGHT TO MAKE HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR THE MINOR CHILD,
27 INCLUDING RIGHTS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15-873, 36-2271 AND 36-2272, UNLESS
28 OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW.

15-873 is the religious/moral/misc stupidity exemption from vaccination.

36-2271 is the right of the parent to refuse surgical treatment on the behalf of their child. I am not sure if AZ is one of the states with a religious exemption to manslaughter or second degree murder charges in the event that they deny healthcare to their child and the child dies. Could someone look that up?

29 6. THE RIGHT TO ACCESS AND REVIEW ALL MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE MINOR
30 CHILD UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW OR THE PARENT IS THE SUBJECT OF AN
31 INVESTIGATION OF A CRIME COMMITTED AGAINST THE MINOR CHILD AND A LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL REQUESTS THAT THE INFORMATION NOT BE RELEASED.

Ah, I see they made explicit the denial of doctor/patient confidentiality.

19 11. THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
20 INVESTIGATION INVOLVING THE PARENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-807.

Oh good, a parent who abuses or neglects their child can find out about an investigation that may be underway and temporarily clean up their act...

2. Procedures by which parents may learn about the course of study for
5 their children and review learning materials, INCLUDING THE SOURCE OF ANY
6 SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS.

Cant have the ACLU passing out copies of the constitution...

3. Procedures by which parents who object to any learning material or
8 activity on the basis that it is harmful may withdraw their children from the
9 activity or from the class or program in which the material is used.
10 Objection to a learning material or activity on the basis that it is harmful
11 includes objection to a material or activity because it questions beliefs or
12 practices in sex, morality or religion.

So students can now get out of HS without ever learning about Germ Theory, Genetics, the age of the earth, evolution etc. They also can be withdrawn from a civics course when talking about church/state separation (not that it exists in AZ anyway), withdrawn from english class when reading certain literature... Yeah. This is a backdoor book ban. I say this because it will cause teachers to avoid teaching these subjects and will effectively ban certain books and concepts from instruction.

4. IF A SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFERS ANY SEX EDUCATION CURRICULA PURSUANT TO
14 SECTION 15-711 OR 15-716 OR PURSUANT TO ANY RULES ADOPTED BY THE STATE BOARD
15 OF EDUCATION, PROCEDURES TO PROHIBIT A SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM PROVIDING SEX
16 EDUCATION INSTRUCTION TO A PUPIL UNLESS THE PUPIL'S PARENT PROVIDES WRITTEN
17 PERMISSION FOR THE CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SEX EDUCATION CURRICULA.
18 5. PROCEDURES BY WHICH PARENTS WILL BE NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OF AND
19 GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW THEIR CHILDREN FROM ANY INSTRUCTION OR
20 PRESENTATIONS REGARDING

Already discussed.

(g) THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF INSTRUCTION ON THE ACQUIRED IMMUNE
36 DEFICIENCY SYNDROME PURSUANT TO SECTION 15-716.

Yes. Parents in the state can opt out of instruction relating to AIDS.

This instruction BTW may not say that being gay is OK, nor may it include instruction relating to ways in which gay people may reduce the risk of transmission.

[Ryan Thunder]

Interestingly enough, I think they do give parents the opportunity to withdraw students from sex-ed here in Ontario.

I don't think anybody in the classes I was in was actually withdrawn because of this, however, but I can see how it could easily be disasterous in a place as ass-backward as the American South.

[Solauren]

Interestingly enough, I think they do give parents the opportunity to withdraw students from sex-ed here in Ontario.

I don't think anybody in the classes I was in was actually withdrawn because of this, however, but I can see how it could easily be disasterous in a place as ass-backward as the American South.

No. It seems the further from the equator you are, the more intelligent your average person is. Or at least less religious and more intellectual.

Probably cause it's too cold in winter here for your average bible-thumber. Can't go door-to-door in snow-drifts.
(Seriously, I have never had a religion pusher come to my door during the winter....)

[Crossroads Inc.]

I'll Tell you what's really unnerving, its that I LIVE in Arizona, And I didn't hear ONE JOT about ny of this! not on the news, not in the news paper, nowhere...Not until AFTER it passed, and then its front page stuff.

[Kanastrous]

You know, lets take a look at (almost) the entire law (I am skipping certain legalesee bits, and parts that on their own may be completely unobjectionable), shall we?

RIGHTS
6 ARTICLE 1. PARENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS
7 1-601. Parents' rights protected
8 A. THE LIBERTY OF PARENTS TO DIRECT THE UPBRINGING, EDUCATION, HEALTH
9 CARE AND MENTAL HEALTH OF THEIR CHILDREN IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

In other words, parents own their kids. Let us see what all this means.

Parents enjoying the liberty to direct their own kids' upbringing does not suggest ownership. Parents are responsible for all of those things and more besides. Do you advocate keeping the parents saddled with those responsibilities while denying them a right to raise their child as they see fit?

Note that nothing there suggests that the parents' rights there are absolute, either: if the parents are mistreating or abusing the child there are still laws on the books to deal with that.

Anyway, that text suggests that a single-parent atheist public-schools enrolling vegan cognitive-developmentalist is protected just as well as a pair of deep-Christian married meat-eaters sending their kid to a parochial school and practicing Paul Meier child-rearing.

20 1. THE RIGHT TO DIRECT THE EDUCATION OF THE MINOR CHILD.

Parents now have the right to with-hold information about the world that may be pertinent to their lives from the child. If taken to its logical conclusion with will force schools to teach holocaust denial etc. We shall wee later (I am reading the bill as I write this) if the specific provisions could be construed to do this.

Damn straight I'd want some ability to direct my child's education. This works for the parent who sees to it that by third grade their child can outline Evolutionary Theory just as well as the couple who sees to it that their child won't be able to, even by the time he hits undergraduate school.

21 2. ALL RIGHTS OF PARENTS IDENTIFIED IN TITLE 15, INCLUDING THE RIGHT
22 TO ACCESS AND REVIEW ALL RECORDS RELATING TO THE MINOR CHILD.

So the parents have a right to access the confidential medical information of the child, including mental health, reproductive health etc. This essentially treats the minor child as a non-person.

Since the parents bear responsibility for the welfare of said minor child, damn straight they should have that access. All-inclusive privacy (if such a thing existed) would be for people who aren't still dependent upon others who are legally bound to care for them. When you're 18 you can have adult privacy. As long as someone is responsible for your care as their minor dependent, you get child privacy. Which ain't much.

Children can't responsibly be treated as adults. This is not treating them as non-persons; it's treating them as second-class citizens. And when you're a child, with a child's ability to handle responsibility and independence, you should in certain particular respects be treated as a second-class citizen.

24 4. THE RIGHT TO DIRECT THE MORAL OR RELIGIOUS TRAINING OF THE MINOR
25 CHILD.
The right to indoctrinate children and keep them from thinking for themselves. Got it.

Yeah, how dare a parent attempt to teach their kids morality and/or religion? Also, how dare a parent teach their kids an atheistic worldview and/or a moral-values system not based upon scripture? Do you not see that every one of these rules so far defends the primacy of parents in teaching their kids what many of *us* would teach them, if left alone to do it? Who do you want to have the lead role in teaching this stuff, if not the parents? Clerics? Who else in this society is going to step forward and say yeah, I'll larn them little-uns sum mor-al-uh-ty? Your analysis seems to relegate parents to the role of breeders who - once the child is pushed out - have all the responsibilities of child-rearing with few if any of the rights.

26 5. THE RIGHT TO MAKE HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR THE MINOR CHILD,
27 INCLUDING RIGHTS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15-873, 36-2271 AND 36-2272, UNLESS
28 OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW.
15-873 is the religious/moral/misc stupidity exemption from vaccination.

36-2271 is the right of the parent to refuse surgical treatment on the behalf of their child. I am not sure if AZ is one of the states with a religious exemption to manslaughter or second degree murder charges in the event that they deny healthcare to their child and the child dies. Could someone look that up?

Someone has to make these decisions on a child's behalf. We don't and can't allow children to direct their own medical treatment. We likewise don't place physicians in loco parentis for their patients. While of course I agree that parents should not be indulged when they want to pursue a course (or non-course) of treatment that threatens their child, the answer is not to remove that authority from parents in general but rather to establish guidelines as to where that authority has to end - which would probably be where "unless otherwise prohibited by law" comes in, the laws involved being child-welfare codes.

And as with any of the above rules, this could benefit parents trying to protect their child from medically inappropriate treatment, as well as parents trying to deny their child medically necessary treatment.

29 6. THE RIGHT TO ACCESS AND REVIEW ALL MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE MINOR
30 CHILD UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW OR THE PARENT IS THE SUBJECT OF AN
31 INVESTIGATION OF A CRIME COMMITTED AGAINST THE MINOR CHILD AND A LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL REQUESTS THAT THE INFORMATION NOT BE RELEASED.

Ah, I see they made explicit the denial of doctor/patient confidentiality.

Except where they didn't - "unless otherwise prohibited by law." Plus a requirement that a parent under investigation for or suspicion of having abused the child is explicitly denied that right. In any case where a parent is fully responsible for care of the minor child, where is the child's presumption of privacy? Again, where necessary children get child-grade rights and protections. We get the adult-grade stuff in certain areas when we hit eighteen.

19 11. THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
20 INVESTIGATION INVOLVING THE PARENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-807.

Oh good, a parent who abuses or neglects their child can find out about an investigation that may be underway and temporarily clean up their act...[/quote]

And a parent wrongfully suspected of child abuse has the right to some degree of knowledge of the investigation concerning them, too. And without reading Section 8-807 (which you may have done but I haven't yet) we don't really know what restrictions may be delineated there, or how tight they may be.

2. Procedures by which parents may learn about the course of study for
5 their children and review learning materials, INCLUDING THE SOURCE OF ANY
6 SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS.

Cant have the ACLU passing out copies of the constitution...[/quote]

If some dipshit fundy tenth-grade bio teacher decides to use his class as a platform to advance Creationism and mis-represent modern biology, you're darn tootin' as a parent I would want to know. Why wouldn't I want to know what my kid learns, in science (or whatever other) class? Again, like all of the above this cuts both ways.

3. Procedures by which parents who object to any learning material or
8 activity on the basis that it is harmful may withdraw their children from the
9 activity or from the class or program in which the material is used.
10 Objection to a learning material or activity on the basis that it is harmful
11 includes objection to a material or activity because it questions beliefs or
12 practices in sex, morality or religion.

So students can now get out of HS without ever learning about Germ Theory, Genetics, the age of the earth, evolution etc. They also can be withdrawn from a civics course when talking about church/state separation (not that it exists in AZ anyway), withdrawn from english class when reading certain literature... Yeah. This is a backdoor book ban. I say this because it will cause teachers to avoid teaching these subjects and will effectively ban certain books and concepts from instruction.

See above. If the bio teacher is pimping Spontaneous Generation or Creation 'Theory' and the history teacher is teaching that the North started the Civil War I'd want the last-resort option to pull a kid from those classes. Likewise if an instructor is blathering about Jesus to her students, that directly conflicts with my belief and practice and I would want a mechanism by which to do something about it.

4. IF A SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFERS ANY SEX EDUCATION CURRICULA PURSUANT TO
14 SECTION 15-711 OR 15-716 OR PURSUANT TO ANY RULES ADOPTED BY THE STATE BOARD
15 OF EDUCATION, PROCEDURES TO PROHIBIT A SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM PROVIDING SEX
16 EDUCATION INSTRUCTION TO A PUPIL UNLESS THE PUPIL'S PARENT PROVIDES WRITTEN
17 PERMISSION FOR THE CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SEX EDUCATION CURRICULA.
18 5. PROCEDURES BY WHICH PARENTS WILL BE NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OF AND
19 GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW THEIR CHILDREN FROM ANY INSTRUCTION OR
20 PRESENTATIONS REGARDING

Already discussed.

Well, yes, this is basically indefensible.

(g) THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF INSTRUCTION ON THE ACQUIRED IMMUNE
36 DEFICIENCY SYNDROME PURSUANT TO SECTION 15-716.

Yes. Parents in the state can opt out of instruction relating to AIDS.

This instruction BTW may not say that being gay is OK, nor may it include instruction relating to ways in which gay people may reduce the risk of transmission.

Lacking an industrial-sized lipstick applicator there isn't much to be done with this pig, either.

I realize that in many if not most places the majority of parents who use rules like these will use them to maintain a cocoon of ignorance around their child, as effectively as possible. But it's still true that on their faces almost all of the above rules do nothing beyond delegate to parents authority that's proportionate to their responsibilities.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I'll Tell you what's really unnerving, its that I LIVE in Arizona, And I didn't hear ONE JOT about ny of this! not on the news, not in the news paper, nowhere...Not until AFTER it passed, and then its front page stuff.

Yeah, I was rather alarmed to have heard about this only when it's about to take effect . . . over two months after this abomination of a law was signed by Brewer.

[General Zod]

Someone has to make these decisions on a child's behalf. We don't and can't allow children to direct their own medical treatment. We likewise don't place physicians in loco parentis for their patients. While of course I agree that parents should not be indulged when they want to pursue a course (or non-course) of treatment that threatens their child, the answer is not to remove that authority from parents in general but rather to establish guidelines as to where that authority has to end - which would probably be where "unless otherwise prohibited by law" comes in, the laws involved being child-welfare codes.

And as with any of the above rules, this could benefit parents trying to protect their child from medically inappropriate treatment, as well as parents trying to deny their child medically necessary treatment.

You could make the argument that denying sex education to children actually threatens their child. Teenagers are going to be screwing around at the first chance they get, and actively denying them important information leads to an increase in STDs and teen pregnancies. I'd say lowering the rates of both is more important than offending the sensibilities of some parent whose panties got in a knot.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Parents enjoying the liberty to direct their own kids' upbringing does not suggest ownership. Parents are responsible for all of those things and more besides. Do you advocate keeping the parents saddled with those responsibilities while denying them a right to raise their child as they see fit?

I view parenting as a responsibility, not a right. That is the difference. There are some things that should be kept from parents, things that are a matter of social responsibility. Sex education, certain aspects of mental health etc. Seeking therapy for something that they cannot discuss with parents--such as sexual abuse at church, being gay or something--is the right of the child to the extent that they can seek it.

Damn straight I'd want some ability to direct my child's education. This works for the parent who sees to it that by third grade their child can outline Evolutionary Theory just as well as the couple who sees to it that their child won't be able to, even by the time he hits undergraduate school.

Giving the kid more information is one thing. Giving them less or incorrect information is another.

Since the parents bear responsibility for the welfare of said minor child, damn straight they should have that access.

And in cases where a student is raped? What about abortions? What if the kid needs birth control in order to avoid horrible cramps but the parents refuse? There are many cases that should be the strict providence of the individual. Once a child begins needing these things, they are old enough to reach their own decisions and should be able to direct their own medical procedures and keep some things private. At the end of the day, it is the childs body, their life. Once they are capable of making adult decisions such as whether or not to have sex, or realize the need to schedule an appointment with a gynecologist then they are adult enough to have confidentiality unless they decide to waive it.

The teen years are definitely an ethical and legal problem are they not?

Someone has to make these decisions on a child's behalf. We don't and can't allow children to direct their own medical treatment.

A six and a sixteen year old are two entirely different animals when it comes to this. Particularly if the beliefs of an older child diverge from those of their parents.

Except where they didn't - "unless otherwise prohibited by law."

Which means special cases like the parent being under investigation. Not doctor-patient confidentiality. Why? Because if they intended for that to exist, then this provision is completely superfluous. Again my objection is not when it comes to six year olds, but older children such as those in their late teens who have things that perhaps should be kept secret from parents.

Treating adulthood as a binary condition is a mistake, any sane person can recognize that.

See above. If the bio teacher is pimping Spontaneous Generation or Creation 'Theory' and the history teacher is teaching that the North started the Civil War I'd want the last-resort option to pull a kid from those classes. Likewise if an instructor is blathering about Jesus to her students, that directly conflicts with my belief and practice and I would want a mechanism by which to do something about it.

Those rules are already in place prior to this law being put into effect. There have been many many lawsuits that lay things like this out. What this is designed to do (bear in mind, I lived in AZ for 12 years and am familiar with the people who wrote this law), is allow for a backdoor by which parents can avoid having their kids learn about things that contradict christianity.

I realize that in many if not most places the majority of parents who use rules like these will use them to maintain a cocoon of ignorance around their child, as effectively as possible. But it's still true that on their faces almost all of the above rules do nothing beyond delegate to parents authority that's proportionate to their responsibilities.

Maybe. But I am commenting on the fact that what the legislature designed it to do is also what its primary use will be. Namely the construction of said cocoon of ignorance. That some good parents may use it for a good purpose is ancillary.

[Kanastrous]

Someone has to make these decisions on a child's behalf. We don't and can't allow children to direct their own medical treatment. We likewise don't place physicians in loco parentis for their patients. While of course I agree that parents should not be indulged when they want to pursue a course (or non-course) of treatment that threatens their child, the answer is not to remove that authority from parents in general but rather to establish guidelines as to where that authority has to end - which would probably be where "unless otherwise prohibited by law" comes in, the laws involved being child-welfare codes.

And as with any of the above rules, this could benefit parents trying to protect their child from medically inappropriate treatment, as well as parents trying to deny their child medically necessary treatment.

You could make the argument that denying sex education to children actually threatens their child. Teenagers are going to be screwing around at the first chance they get, and actively denying them important information leads to an increase in STDs and teen pregnancies. I'd say lowering the rates of both is more important than offending the sensibilities of some parent whose panties got in a knot.

Which is why to that specific part of it my response was

Well, yes, this is basically indefensible.

and not the section on medical care that you snipped, instead.

[General Zod]

Someone has to make these decisions on a child's behalf. We don't and can't allow children to direct their own medical treatment. We likewise don't place physicians in loco parentis for their patients. While of course I agree that parents should not be indulged when they want to pursue a course (or non-course) of treatment that threatens their child, the answer is not to remove that authority from parents in general but rather to establish guidelines as to where that authority has to end - which would probably be where "unless otherwise prohibited by law" comes in, the laws involved being child-welfare codes.

And as with any of the above rules, this could benefit parents trying to protect their child from medically inappropriate treatment, as well as parents trying to deny their child medically necessary treatment.

You could make the argument that denying sex education to children actually threatens their child. Teenagers are going to be screwing around at the first chance they get, and actively denying them important information leads to an increase in STDs and teen pregnancies. I'd say lowering the rates of both is more important than offending the sensibilities of some parent whose panties got in a knot.

Which is why to that specific part of it my response was

Well, yes, this is basically indefensible.

and not the section on medical care that you snipped, instead.

Your posts seem to contradict each other then, because parents already have considerable leeway to make sure their children don't receive medically inappropriate treatment. Physicians generally can't do anything without parental consent anyway unless it's a life-threatening emergency.

[Kanastrous]

Then does that item in the bill have any impact that we need to discuss?

[General Zod]

Then does that item in the bill have any impact that we need to discuss?

It sets an extremely unpleasant precedent of letting parents opt their children out of classes that offend their sensibilities. Frankly there's absolutely no need for a law that arguably does more harm than good in the first place.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Your posts seem to contradict each other then, because parents already have considerable leeway to make sure their children don't receive medically inappropriate treatment. Physicians generally can't do anything without parental consent anyway unless it's a life-threatening emergency.

There are some things that generally do not require parental consent. Reproductive care and mental health care are typically on the list IIRC. A parent cannot if I remember properly (in any state) mandate that their child have an abortion. On the same token, neither can they remove that right (in many states). Same with mental health care. Via the school in the past, a student could obtain confidential counseling services. These are very very useful things for a student to have access to during the teen years, when things come up that may not be physically safe for the parents to know about (GAYS!!!!). Gone in AZ now.