Respect Life Office Director Explains Illinois FOCA
Posted by Research Team (March 18, 2009 at 8:13 am)
Mary-Louise Kurey, Director of the Archdiocese of Chicago Respect Life Office, explains why HB 2354 is so dangerous for Illinois.
9 Responses to “Respect Life Office Director Explains Illinois FOCA”
Leave a Reply
We welcome a free and open exchange of ideas on this blog, from all points of view, but we request that you restrict your remarks to the topic under discussion in the above entry.
To ensure constructive dialog, the following will not be tolerated:
- Personal attacks
- Profanity or obscenity
- Misrepresentation
- Copyright violation
For long links, please use a service like Tiny URL to shorten the link—or use link tags: replace the text in red with your complete link, and the text in green with a word or phrase that describes the link:
Here's a <a href="http://www.website.com/page.htm">link</a>.
I think this bill is horrible and I’ve contacted my Rep and urged him to vote “No”.
However, I don’t understand your contention that it mandates comprehensive sex education in public schools in Illinois. This seems to be already established under the Critical Health Problems and Comprehensive Health Education Act (105 ILCS 110/)
HB 2354 seems to set out some guidelines for course material and instruction that aren’t currently in the Comp. Health Ed. Act (contained in Section 30 of HB 2354) and amends the Comp. Health Ed. Act (as indicated in Section 3). But as far as I can tell, comprehensive health education is already the law in Illinois. What am I missing?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Will someone from the Research Team be answering the questions I asked in my prior two comments? I hope so, because the best way for me to help fight this bill and encourage others to do so is to be fully informed.
Thanks.
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:39 am
With respect to the impact of HB 2354 on sex education in Illinois public schools, here is a short summary of the background:
1. Statutory law in Illinois on sex education is contained in various provisions, including the Critical Health Problems and Comprehensive Health Education Act (105 ILCS 110), the School Code (105 ILCS 5/27), and the Sex Education Act (105 ILCS 130).
2. The Critical Health Problems and Comprehensive Health Education Act (the “Act”) contains requirements related to the establishment of an educational programs across a wide range of health issues (e.g., alcohol, drug, and tobacco use; first aid, CPR, and the Heimlich maneuver; and more). The Act also contains provisions on “family life” issues, including teaching children about sexual abstinence until marriage and prevention and control of AIDS. See 105 ILCS 110/3.
3. HB 2354 would change the Act and statutory law in Illinois in two important respects:
(a) HB 2354 would strike from the Act all references to teaching children about *sexual abstinence until marriage*. See HB 2354, Section 45. As is self-evident, sexual abstinence from marriage is the only 100% effective means of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, as well as avoiding other potentially serious emotional and physical consequences of pre-marital sex. It makes no sense to withhold this critical information and guidance from children in public schools in Illinois.
(b) HB 2354 would add into Illinois statutory law a requirement that, with respect to sex education in Illinois, such “instruction shall be *free of bias* regarding race, color, sex, *sexual orientation*, *gender identity*, religion, disability, or national or ethnic origin.” See HB 2354, Section 30. HB 2354 would accordingly establish a new mandatory obligation for all sex education in Illinois to teach in a manner “free from bias” that all forms of sexual orientation are equal and therefore to be supported (whether heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, or other), and that all forms of gender identity are equal and therefore to be supported (e.g., transsexual behavior and the like).
4. These changes would not be suggestions or mere “guidelines,” but would be statutory mandates for all public school sex education in Illinois. Local control over the content of public school education on these topics would be removed, as all curriculum would need to follow these mandates. These state-wide statutory mandates would fundamentally shift the mandatory content in sex education classes in Illinois in a harmful direction.
5. Of course, re-writing the state statutory code on sex education is only one of about six categories of objectionable provisions in HB 2354. It therefore becomes clear that it is difficult to find words that adequately describe how damaging this bill would be for Illinois women, children, and families if it is adopted. It must be defeated.
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Thank you for responding Dr. Spock.
Actually, when HB2354 got voted out of committee it was amended to retain the “sexual abstinence until marriage” wording. (House Committee Amendment No. 1)
I did read the “free of bias” language, but I’m not sure it necessarily follows that school districts will be teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity.
But regardless, you’re right that we need to fight this bill. I’m still not comfortable with some of the conclusions that have been drawn regarding sex education, but I can certainly address the other points with my representative and spread the word.
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Thank you for the kind reply Cheryl, and the update on the retention of the language re: abstinence education before the bill passed out of committee. Good news!
Can you describe a bit more about why you are still unsure about the scope or effect of Section 30? Is it that you think it may be a recommendation/guideline rather than a requirement, or is it something else? If HB2354 goes thru in current form, and my school district did not teach about sexual orientation in sex ed (where bisexual, homosexual, and heterosexual were all supported, and gender identity explained to support transsexuals, etc.), I would be concerned that we would be vulnerable to a lawsuit based on the “no bias” language.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 am
I guess I’m unsure about how the school districts will interpret the “free of bias” clause. It’s an exclusion statement (excludes bias) versus an inclusion statement. I don’t read it as mandating inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity any more that it mandates the inclusion of race, color, religion, disability, or national or ethnic origin in the sex ed program. The Comp. Health Ed. Act is very specific about what topics need to be covered in the curriculum, and sexual orientation and gender identity are not stated.
Now, whether it will open the door to allowing teachers and administrators with their own agenda to include coverage of these topics, I don’t know. But there’s nothing stopping them from doing that even today, so I take a very active approach and stay on top of what the teachers plan to discuss with my children.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Cheryl,
Thank you for the response. A few further thoughts:
1) It is correct to say that sexual orientation and gender identity are not stated in the Comp. Health Ed Act - today.
2) If HB 2354 is adopted, Section 45 would amend the Comp. Health Ed Act to specify that the program established under the act must include “comprehensive sexual health education that complies with Section 30 of [HB 2354].” Section 30 of HB 2354, as we know, includes the mandatory statutory language that sex ed classes must be “free of bias” with respect to “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. Moreover, Section 30 itself would become a statutory requirement for sex ed programs throughout the state, applicable notwithstanding any provision in the Comp. Health Ed Act.
3) If HB 2354 is adopted, and a school district presents instruction that heterosexual monogamy in marriage is preferable to homosexual civil unions, such instruction would conflict with the amended version of Comp Health Ed Act (that includes Section 30), and also the plain statutory language in Section 30 of HB 2354 wherever it would be codified.
4) So, it’s clear that HB 2354 would have a profound impact on the content of sex education in Illinois, even under a narrow “exclusionary-only” interpretation of Section 30 as you set forth above.
5) Taking it the next step, if the school district presents instruction about heterosexual activity, and is silent on homosexual activity (i.e., does not affirmatively “include” a description of the latter), a plaintiffs attorney could persuasively argue that such instruction is not “free of bias” as statutorily mandated by Section 30. The argument would be that – since the object of the sex education instruction is sexuality – the exclusion of homosexual/bisexual orientation from the instruction is inherently biased and contrary to Section 30. More concretely, the lawyer would argue that “[t]here are children in this school district that may be bisexual or homosexual. How will they discover this if they do not have unbiased sex education that explains that these are all valid sexual orientations? This is plainly contradictory to the legislature’s intent to mandate that sex education in Illinois must be free from bias with regard to sexual orientation as per Section 30.”
6) If HB 2354 is adopted, the lawyer in item 5) would unfortunately have a compelling argument. School districts across the state will be bound to present and promote all sexual orientations and gender identities in sex education programs. You are correct that the school officials are already able to go there if they want - and it is good that you are staying involved with your children’s curriculum for this reason. The problem is that HB 2354 would tie their hands and make everyone go there, even the majority that don’t want to.
Peace!
March 24th, 2009 at 2:01 am
Hi there! I am doing a lot of work on my campus to raise awareness about this crazy bill.
As a biology student, I have a lot of pre-med friends, so the right of healthcare professionals to object to abortions is important to me.
Could you please explain in more detail how this bill removes that right? When I read section 35, it seems as if the do have the right to object if they do all those different things and write all those letters, etc.
I’d like to understand the issue a little better. Can you explain?
March 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Great write up - five stars. I bookmarked this page. I am promoting my blog which is based around the topic of men’s health and we are also promoting a few men’s sexual health related products like Vimax Pills, Vimax Extenders, Vimax Patches etc. Please check out my bog for more details.
November 27th, 2009 at 7:48 am