More thoughts on sex education

Comprehensive. Comprehensive. Comprehensive. I’m sick of comprehensive.

That’s the tiresome chant in support for Assembly Bill 230 in the Nevada Legislature. It is a piece of legislation referred to as (surprise!) The Comprehensive Sex Education Bill. It has passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly and awaits its fate in the Senate and possibly the governor’s office.

And, you know, what’s not to like about “comprehensive”? We wouldn’t want our kids studying anything (even sex) that’s not comprehensive, right?

Well, in this case, “comprehensive” is a loaded word. It’s a dishonest word. It’s a word used to create a smoke screen to shield Nevadans from seeing what AB230 actually is.

So allow me to cut through the haze.

But first, a Shakespearean aside to say this doesn’t mean I oppose the general idea of sex education in public schools or many of the ideas in the proposed changes in AB230. But I absolutely hate lesser politicians and pressure groups who try to cloak their agenda by using words like “comprehensive,” as it is used in this case.

Here’s the scoop: AB230 updates an existing law (NRS 389.065) that already requires sex education in public schools. AB230, however, prescribes the topics that must be taught in school. It must be age-appropriate, comprehensive and medically accurate.

The American Civil Liberties Union gives us the standard progressive line for why we need AB230. The ACLU says it supports the bill because “comprehensive sex education gives young people the information they need to lead healthy and fulfilling lives.”

“Nevada’s teens experience one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the country. (Hence my stellar column last week poking fun at this progressive rationale entitled “Silver State girls are easy”.)

“Forty-three percent of Nevada’s high school students report already having sex, yet they are not taught the basics of pregnancy and disease prevention, the proper use of condoms or how to get tested for STDs.

“We owe our young adults factual, honest, age-appropriate information so they can make educated decisions about their bodies, their health and their futures.”

This is pretty much the mantra espoused by most supporters of the bill. It doesn’t tell the whole story.

Vicki Cowart, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, came a bit closer to letting the cat out of the bag when she wrote that the bill would “ensure that sexual health information that denigrates gay and transgender youths ... will not be permitted.”

But she shaves the truth, too.

AB230 actually says that sex education in Nevada must without limitation “promote the inclusion and acceptance of pupils regardless of ... gender identity or expression (or) sexual orientation.”

Cowart says “ensure.” The proposed law says “promote”

When it comes to NRS, the word “promote” is a long way from “ensure.”

Now look, as I said in my Shakespearean aside earlier, I’m not flat-out opposed to updating the current sex education law. Teach sexual health, abstinence and contraceptives. Make it voluntary (which AB230 does, to its credit). But if we’re going to get into Kama Sutra instruction with charts and slides for all creatures great and small, please count me out.

And that’s where it looks like AB230 is headed. When most progressive advocates use the word “comprehensive,” it appears to be code for teaching homosexual and transgender sex. Not that there’s anything wrong with gay and transgender sex.

But it raises a most troubling question no Nevada politician wants to publicly answer: In what grade, exactly, shall we “promote” the inclusiveness described in AB230 and teach children about gay and transgender sex?

Pardon my bluntness, but let’s be straightforward about AB230. As always, I mean this in the nicest — and most comprehensive — way possible.

That is all. Keep calm. Carry on.

Sherman Frederick, former publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and a member of the Nevada Newspaper Hall of Fame, writes a column for Stephens Media. Read his blog at www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/sherman-frederick.