Wednesday, January 9, 2013 | 9 comments

The Birds, the Bees, and Big Government

By Connor Boyack

Audio Recording

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

View our iTunes Podcast

Senator Stuart Reid has sponsored SB39, titled “Parental Responsibility for Sex Education Training,” which requires the state of Utah to develop and promote materials for parents to teach their kids the “birds and the bees.” If this isn’t a prime example of big government doing what it shouldn’t, we don’t know what is.

It’s common sense that, as the bill’s title says, parents have the responsibility to teach their children about what sex is. That hardly offers any justification for the government to force taxpayers to cough up money to fund the development and promotion of sex education materials. If some parents are perceived to be failing in this responsibility, then private organizations—churches, non-profit groups, parental support institutions—should be encouraged to help provide materials.

SB39 states that the State Board of Education “shall develop a parent health education training program for parents of minors, including training curricula and instructional materials, to instruct parents how to educate their children on… human sexuality.”

And if simply offering these materials wasn’t enough, the bill requires pushing them onto parents. “At least twice each school year,” the bill reads, “a school district or charter school shall provide notice to parents within the school district or charter school that the home instructional materials… are available to parents online and, upon request, at the school district office.”

According to one recent news report, Senator Reid believes that his bill “would give parents the tools they need” to teach their children about sex. We reject the notion that the government should be the author and source of such tools; a government limited to defending life, liberty, and property does not engage in promoting sex education materials.

 



Tagged in: ,

About the Author

Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute. He is the author of several books on politics and religion, including the Tuttle Twins series for children.


2 comments
Becky S
Becky S

I agree, the government has got to step back on this one. There are already many resources out there for parents to use from private organizations and churches, even books published on the this subject to teach your children the basics of sex education. Really, how wold the gov. even decide what to put in there...different cultures, backgrounds and each family has their own ideas about the birds and the bees...there isn't just one way that is right or wrong to teach some of the material that  should or shouldn't be covered.

 

TroyParry
TroyParry

Since the odds of a sexually uneducated girl of becoming a single mother are much higher than the odds of a sexually educated girl, how many more single parent households would there be under your hands-off proposal?  Since children raised by one parent instead of two are way more likely to be criminals, what would be the increase in our future crime rate under your scenario?  Under a liberal democrat system, where the children are fully educated on these things, what would the future crime rate be?  Less?  Much less?  It seems that your hands-off proposal increases the odds that I'll be murdered (LIFE), increases the odds that I'll have to be more cautious, armed, and locked in my home more often (LIBERTY), and increases the odds that my property values will lower, my property is more likely to be stolen and/or vandalized (PROPERTY).  So the libertarian solution has a government failing way more at protecting my life, liberty, and property, and to quote the Declaration of Independence, my "pursuit of happiness", than the proposals of a liberal democrat.

Featured

Google+