Google Find us on Google+

Anal Sex-Ed Bill Passes Massachusetts Senate

Jul 21, 2017 by

BOSTON — As it did in 2015, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill nearly entirely along party lines on Thursday dictating how school districts teach sex education; and just like two years ago, the biggest sticking point for the bill’s opponents was the lack of an opt-in stipulation for parents and guardians.

Unlike in 2015, however, it is likely this version of the bill will reach the House floor for a vote, but it remains to be seen if lawmakers on the other side of the State House attach the failed parental opt-in amendment touted Thursday by House Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester).

Following the 31-6 vote in favor that saw the only Democratic opposition come from state Senator Michael Rush of West Roxbury, Tarr praised the “robust and healthy debate” that transpired Thursday afternoon but expressed “hope that as it makes its way through the legislative process” that lawmakers outside the Senate will wind up adopting proposals like a parental consent stipulation.

The bill’s lead sponsor, state Senator Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett) took issue with Tarr’s opt-in proposal.

“This amendment would gut the bill,” DiDomenico claimed, noting that the legislation already features an opt-out amendment for both parents and school districts. “This amendment would effectively take all the work we put together and throw it out the window.

“We do not have opt-in for science, math, English — we don’t have any opt-in initiative for any other subjects in our schools — this subject in particular could save lives.”

Other Democrats who spoke out in opposition to Tarr’s amendment included state Senator John Keenan of Quincy, Worcester’s Harriet Chandler, and Boston’s Sonia Chang-Diaz. Keenan and Chang-Diaz added that a parental consent requirement would add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy, with Keenan claiming that it “would require school districts to chase down the parents of every single student” while Chang-Diaz noting that “many of my colleagues in the chamber in the minority are avid proponents of small streamlined government.”

Chandler claimed that an opt-in provision would result in a “very limited number of people who would be taking advantage of it.”

“The alternative of what we’re talking about is our children learning about these behaviors from what they hear on the school bus or read on the Internet,” she added.

State Senator Vinny deMacedo (R-Plymouth), responding to Keenan’s point, used student field trips as an example of opt-in protocol.

“I don’t think that’s an impossible hurdle to overcome,” he said. “The reality is that asking parents if they’re comfortable with this or not is not a stretch by any means.”

Tarr appeared to take issue with the claim linking parental approval to an added layer of bureaucracy.

“Well well well, it is interesting that some of these folks have stood at this microphone and suggested somehow that obtaining parental consent is so burdensome that we shouldn’t follow through with this,” Tarr quipped. “Suggesting that the role of a parent should be subordinate to the role of bureaucracy, now that’s a deeply concerning thought.”

Tarr also challenged DiDomenico’s claim that an opt-in provision would “gut the bill.”

“That somehow this bill is jeopardized by the fact that we might want to involve parents in the decision making — what does that suggest about the priorities of the bill?” Tarr questioned. “It suggests that somehow we ought to subordinate the role of the parent to the role of the state.

“It’s also been suggested that we don’t have opt-in provisions for math, science, and other things, well that is true, but we also don’t have opt-out provisions for those things, because they don’t fit the same matter as the subject matter that we’re discussing here.”

Conservative organizations, including the Massachusetts Family Institute, are vehemently opposed to the bill over the proposed curriculum’s subject matter, which suggests that instruction regarding sexual aspects such as anal intercourse is age-appropriate for children as young as 12.

“If you have to have an affirmative act from a parent in order to go on a school trip, should you not have to have the affirmative act of a parent to be involved in education that involves morality, subjective judgment, and important health matters?” Tarr said. “I think the matter speaks for itself.”

DiDomenico responded to Tarr’s argument by noting he is not looking to subvert the role of parents and countered that he “would put this in the same category as English, math, and science.”

“In some respects I’d put it ahead of those subjects,” DiDomenico added. “There are life-ending, life-long consequences, and a critical mistake can change their lives forever.”

State Senator Barbara L’Italien (D-Andover) also spoke, mentioning an incident in which her older sister became pregnant during high school.

“Getting married at age 17 locked her into a life of virtual poverty,” L’Italien said. “I wish there had been accurate health information when she was a student back in the ’70s, I think her life might have changed dramatically.

“There are times when government needs to be proactive, and protective, and this is one of those situations.”

State Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) did not speak during the debate over Tarr’s amendment but was vocal on social media:

 

Eldridge also challenged another individual who chimed in during his Twitter rant, saying she believes adding prior parental permission to be a sound suggestion:

Eldridge, however, neglected to mention that state Senator Richard Ross (R-Wrentham) voted against Tarr’s amendment while four Democrats (Senators Joan Lovely of Salem, Michael Moore of Millbury, Rush, and Walter Timilty of Milton) voted in support of it.

Tarr’s amendment failed on a 9-29 vote.

Following the final vote to pass the bill, Massachusetts Family Institute Executive Director Andrew Beckwith expressed his disappointment when reached by a New Boston Post reporter.

“Apparently, a majority of state senators don’t trust their local school committees to decide what their students should be taught about sex,” he said, referring to the bill’s provision that while local school districts can choose not to offer sex education, they apparently cannot pick and choose which aspects to teach and what ages are appropriate for children to learn them. “Parents and educators should be outraged.

“If you texted a quote from some of the material deemed ‘age appropriate’ for seventh graders under this bill to an actual 12-year old, you would likely go to jail.”

Source: Anal Sex-Ed Bill Passes Massachusetts Senate | NewBostonPost

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Advertisements
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponPrint this pageEmail this to someone

13 Comments

  1. Jim

    All liberals are pedophiles

  2. Gilchrist

    Another state with mega-million dollar schools, Democrats pushing the sexualization of children in schools, and children graduating with pathetic excuses for an education. The Commonwealth wants parents involved when it comes to providing supplies their kids need to function in school, but all know better than parents when it’s time to discuss and influence their sexual behavior.

  3. Alex

    Okay. You guys are all getting so bent out of shape because of the sex education that is provided by school, thinking they’re encouraging kids to engage in sodomy. The focus of what they teach isn’t how to have sex, but how our bodies work and what the dangers are of having unprotected sex. Years ago in my sex ed class I was taught about the dangers of anal sex, they didn’t just act like it doesn’t happen. And to everyone commenting on this thread, I can say with almost 100% certainty that you have engaged in an act of sodomy. We should want the best for our children, not just gloss over sex education so that we can feel like we’ve saved them from something they’ll end up doing anyway.

  4. Jenny

    Sick pedophiles want to promote their perversities to their victims, it’s called grooming.

  5. Js

    The school has no business teaching this stuff to kids, this is a horrible idea and just goes to show the decline in morals, especially among the liberals…they have a perverse agenda and I say get your kids out of these God forsaken schools.

  6. Their plan all along has been to take away our rights and mold the future generations into their workers and helpers. SOCIALISTM COMMUNISM

  7. Jim

    The parents job? If that’s true then never have so many failed so MISERABLY!

  8. sonia

    excuse me but I want to know who the hell he thinks he is telling me what is appropriate for my children. I am so sick and tired of these liberal twits taking it upon themselves to think they know better than me what is right and wrong for my children. I have something to say about that you have no rights when it comes to my child you have no rights when it comes to what I tell them and what I don’t tell them you have no right to tell me how to raise my child

    • Js

      The arrogance of these liberal politicians..they need to be run out of office…pushing their perversion on children..they have no shame!

  9. Government stay out of peoples lives, mind your own business.

  10. Karen Bracken

    Teaching reading and math is the schools job. Teaching sex is a parents job. End of story. Parents you better do your job before they take away your rights as a parent because that is what this is really all about.

Leave a Reply

UA-24036587-1
%d bloggers like this: