Sexual health education in public schools discussed

Public schools would be required to offer sexual health education under a bill heard by the Education Committee March 12.

LB619, introduced by Malcolm Sen. Ken Haar, would establish guidelines for schools to follow in providing sexual health education. Schools would select from a list of curricula available through the state Department of Education that meet these standards.

“This will provide age appropriate, medically accurate education for both families and young people,” Haar said.

Instructional topics suggested by the bill include:
• avoiding peer and social pressure to engage in sexual activity;
• recognizing and managing inappropriate and unwanted sexual advances; and
• learning that it is wrong to exploit or take advantage of another person.

Students would be encouraged to talk with their parents or guardian about sexual health. Parents would have the right to review the curriculum and remove their child from instruction upon request.

Christopher Fisher, a public health professor from Omaha, supported the bill, saying it would provide necessary education for all young people.

“Having a uniform policy will help solidify a fundamental baseline of education for the youth of our state,” he said. “The effectiveness of the proposed approach is supported in the scientific literature.”

Janine Brignole of Lincoln also supported the bill. She identified herself as HIV positive and said she was not adequately informed about preventing sexually transmitted infections.

Representing the Nebraska Catholic Conference, Greg Schleppenbach testified in opposition to the bill. He said it has negative implications for teens.

“This gives a dismissive nod to abstinence while sometimes promoting contraception,” he said. “It also dismisses a teenager’s capacity to control themselves sexually.”

Karen Bowling, associate director of the Nebraska Family Council, also opposed the bill, saying it would threaten local control.

“By forcing parents to opt out of the curriculum requirements, we place them in an adverse position,” she said, suggesting that parents instead be required to opt in.

The committee took no immediate action on the bill.