Any information about contraceptives, abortion or pregnancy would have to come from "designated family practitioners" and not from teachers if a bill sponsored by Sen. Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, is passed.
Currently, 170.015.RSMo says that course materials shall "Present students with the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."
If Nodler's bill, SB 776, passes, that would be changed to read, "Inform students that medically and personally relevant information regarding contraception, abortion, and pregnancy may be available from their previously designated family practitioner under section 167.611, RSMo.
Other additions under the Nodler bill would require:
-All curriculum materials "used in human sexuality instruction" must be made available for public inspection (that has always been the case), "as well as provide the names of the instructors and the instructors' affiliations to any entities involved with human sexuality instruction, at least one week prior to the use of such materials in actual instruction or presentations by such instructors."
-No school district or charter school can permit a person to provide materials or instruction "if such person or entity is a provider of abortion services."
9 comments:
Instead of adding more stupid laws to the books of Missouri, I wish Nodler and his buddies would spend the next year removing five or six hundred of these laws from Missouri's books.
Once again Randy Turner has printed false information about our State Senator Gary Nodler. I just read the bill on the Senator's website. It does not say anything about the sex education only being provided by a family practitioner, but does require schools to inform their students that information is available to them from the family practitioner that the student has identified to the school under a different section of law. This bill is about not allowing sex education to be presented by abortion providers. It says nothing that would prevent this education coming from properly accredited teachers. It seems that almost everything Randy has to say about the Senator is exaggerated or untrue.
It is amazing how it appears that the only person I regularly print "false" information about is Gary Nodler, at least according to the Nodler apologist(s). I just doublechecked the information, and there is nothing in my post that was incorrect. When you change the language of a law from present students with information to tell them they can get it from their family practitioners, it is obvious what the intent of the bill is.
Unless, you're want to make Missouri a haven of unwed mothers or the destination of choice for would-be adoptive parents it's a really stupid thing to do.
Randy you are wrong: Nothing in this bill prevents teachers from teaching sex education or human reproduction classes if they are certified and accredited as in present law. The only reference to family practitioners is that the school; would be required to inform students that this information is also available to them from the family doctor they have listed with the school district. Your assertion is certainly wrong. Why not just print the Senator's bill and let your readers decide? It is because you lack integrity. You really should seek professional help for this psychotic fixation you have about Senator Nodler and your inability to acknowledge an error on your part!
But again what it the damned point of it? What we have is fine and Nodler is clutching for straws trying to find some emotional issue he can ride to reelection. Face a fact, we are tired of Gary and his temper and we have finally realized that he is the closest thing to nothing that has ever held that office.
Why should it be a law? Any family has been able to ask their family doctor to give them information on anything. Why have a law that waste more paper and takes time away from education to inform them of something they have always had. It would make as much sense that the schools be required to notify the parents that if their child has a cold they have the opportunity and option to contact their doctor. There is enough paper waste in government as it is. I thought republicans were for less government interference. This sure does not fit that bill.
I wonder how much input Mr. Nodler asked for and received from his constituents. Where does he see the need to introduce such a bill? Has there been that much discussion about the introduction of this bill in his district. It would appear that he is just looking for some hot button issue. Maybe he needs to attend some of the public meetings held in his district or, heaven forbid, call a public meeting to clarify his position on issues that pertain to his district.
Before supporting any bill, conservatives such as Mr. Nodler should determine what problem the bill solves. More specifically what danger or threat to society is minimalized through this additional legislation. Even if the apologist's analysis of Nodler's bill is proper, I still don't see how this bill improves my family's quality of life. Why do we need to require teachers to be accredited before they tell students about their options or to talk to their doctor? Is there a problem with school secretaries or bus drivers persuading young girls to get lots of abortions?
Post a Comment