http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sex_ed_wisconsin MAUSTON, Wis. – Mike Taake has taught sex education for 30 years, and he says he knows what doesn't work: just telling kids to wait. The Mauston High School health teacher has used abstinence-only and comprehensive curriculums, and he said students need all the information they can get about sex to make the best choices. But teaching them about contraceptives could land him and other teachers in court. Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth last month sent a letter to area school districts warning that health teachers who tell students how to put on a condom or take birth-control pills could face criminal charges. The warning has left many teachers, school administrators and parents flabbergasted. "Seems like a step back in time," Taake said of Southworth's logic. Southworth, a Republican and a Christian evangelical, took issue with a law Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle signed in February requiring schools that teach sexual education to adopt a comprehensive approach. Southworth warned that teaching a student how to properly use contraceptives would be contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars and a $10,000 fine. He said it would be promoting sex among minors who are not legally allowed to have sex in Wisconsin. "It puts the school kind of in the middle between two sides, between the government and state telling us what should be taught and what people think should not be taught," said Scott Lenz, a health teacher in the New Lisbon School District. He said he would teach contraceptive use if he got the approval of his school board. Southworth said he doesn't want to drag teachers into court but feels he was ethically responsible for warning them of the new law's potential consequences. He urged the school districts to refrain from offering sex education courses until the Legislature repeals the law. "Listen, there's a real problem with the law," he said. "I didn't pick the fight. The Legislature dumped it in my lap." Southworth didn't cite evidence in his letter showing that teaching someone to use contraceptives makes them more likely to have sex. But in an interview Thursday, he pointed to Milwaukee Public Schools, which teach comprehensive sex ed but still struggle with high teen pregnancy rates. Sex education experts, however, caution that many factors besides education play into teen sex, such as media exposure. Janine Geske, a Marquette University law professor and former state Supreme Court justice, said she didn't understand Southworth's legal logic. She said that if he tried to prosecute a teacher for adhering to guidelines approved by the Legislature and governor, the case would likely be dismissed. "To be frank, I can't follow exactly what he's trying to get at," Geske said. "If a teacher is educating a student pursuant to state law ... I don't see how under any examination (that) could be criminal." In Wisconsin, children under age 17 who have sex with each other can be prosecuted as juveniles. Seventeen-year-olds who have sex with one another can be convicted as adults of a misdemeanor. Wisconsin schools aren't required to teach sex education. But under the new law, which was backed by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, schools that do must teach a range of topics, including the benefits of abstinence, the proper use of contraceptives, how to make responsible decisions and the criminal penalties for underage sex. Parents can choose to keep their children out of the classes. Southworth says he's not trying to bolster his reputation as a social conservative for a potential run for higher office, but his stance has proved popular with anti-abortion groups. Matt Sande, the legislative director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, which opposes the new law, said every district attorney in Wisconsin should follow Southworth's lead. "We commend him for his courage, his frankness in exposing the consequences of this irresponsible new law," Sande said. "If I were a district administrator, I would want to know the impact." But many parents said they were befuddled by Southworth's warning. Audrey Jensen, whose 16-year-old daughter, Justina, is a sophomore at Mauston High School, said Southworth is trying to censor what students learn, usurping the role of parents. Children will have sex regardless, she said, and they need all the information they can get. "I think he's actually a little unrealistic," said Jensen, 47. "Obviously he doesn't remember being a teenager." Mauston High School quarterback Brady Nelson, 16, said sex education doesn't encourage teens to do it and Southworth should leave health teachers alone. "It teaches you more about the bad side of it than the good," he said. "You're not going to learn any other way. You can't really charge a teacher for teaching us about the ways of life." Taake said he intends to teach contraceptive use and isn't worried about being prosecuted. "It's not just teaching them how birth control works. It's everything else that goes with it," he said. "To arrest me for teaching correct birth control and the student makes the wrong decision and gets pregnant, that's not my decision."
The parents that are up in arms about the DA's actions should simply teach their children about birth control and show them how to put on a condom.
What year is this again? Are we in 1950? How long are we going to keep having these same ridiculous arguments against sex ed? I guess driving instructors shouldn't talk to kids about drinking and driving either, since that will just "encourage them" to go do it.
This is getting r****ded. Maybe it really is time to separate the U.S into two countries. A reasonable country and then one for the Republicans/hardcore Christians.
That would be a fun experiment! I wonder which group would do better? And could you choose to live in one over the other?
I think the question has come to the point of SOCIAL TEACHING? What I mean is. . . what SOCIAL information should teacher be teaching kids? Which directions on how to function in Society should teachers impart to students? Birth Control . . the aforementioned Drinking and driving . . . Hell interpretations of HISTORY Back in the 50's you have a more homogenized society. The majority was the majority and pretty solid in its views When someone has a strong 70~90% majority . . . it is pretty simple what to teach and what not too. in 2010 . .. this percentages are more like 40 - 40 and 20 40 - Teach Abstainence only 40 - Teach Sex Ed 20 - If there is grass on the field . . PLAY BALL! [the numbers are purely fiction but a demonstration of a point] The more diverse the viewpoints. . the more difficult it will be on these issues Rocket River
sure, it would be ideal if parents could teach their kids about contraceptives, but let's be real: in many instances, parents are "abstinence-only" educators too. my parents never taught me about contraceptives. i was 18 before i even knew exactly what sex was. social conservatives, ESPECIALLY the pro-life crowd, should welcome contraceptive education. it WILL cut down on abortions, abstinence-only education WILL NOT and DOES NOT. just look at which states have the highest teen pregnancy rates - conservative states that use abstinence-only as the bulk of their sex ed. honestly, what is so offensive about teaching kids how to use condoms??? sometimes it seems like we take a step forward and then 4 or 5 steps back.
Lebowski references are lost on the majority of Americans. This is a decision that should be left to the legislature. In WI it was, and if the DA tries to bring charges, they will probably be dropped. And statistics be damned. If a society decides for itself on an issue like this that they want to teach abstinence only education and inculcate that value, ain't nothing stopping them. And save me the don't legislate morals shtick because I know that's where you like to go. Don't act like the reverse is not educating morals. They're just different morals.
I can imagine the holding cell conversation: Inmate 1: "So what are you in for?" Inmate 2: "Armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. You?" Inmate 1: "Teaching sex-ed to students in my health class." Inmate 2: "whut?"
[/snark mode] Do you believe that with sex ed courses, parents should have a mandatory opt-out available if they do not want their children participating, for whatever reasons, religious, etc.? Because some courts don't, and that's why these issues are so hotly contested. [switching back to snark mode]
yeah, dogs continue to go back and eat their own vomit. if there's one thing in the world everyone can agree on, it's trying to limit abortions. that's not really a "different" kind of morality. i wish abortions were so scarce it weren't an issue in this country. but we're paddling against a very strong current. to tell a teenager to "just stay abstinent" is like putting a naked, eager jessica alba and angelina jolie in front of a heterosexual man with a bed and some KY and telling him not to get aroused.
sure. i never said either side was perfect. have an opt-out option. i just think there should be an opt-out, not an opt-in. i'm arguing broadly here.