Recently, fellow legislators and I have been the target of
some friendly fire (optimistically speaking) in relation to a bill that I
sponsored and carried in the Indiana House, Senate Bill 65, Instruction on Human Sexuality. These are the facts concerning the actions that I and the House
took in relation to this bill.
SB 65 was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Dennis Kruse, a
longtime friend and ally with whom I have sponsored other legislation such as
SB 101 in 2015, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This year, while
the final passed version of SB 65 was different from the introduced version,
much of the bill was left intact, contrary to the claims that it was “gutted.”
Let me be very clear: The
final version of the bill strengthens parental rights in Indiana. Examples:
Schools will now be required to inform and notify parents whenever a sex
education class is taught. Schools will now be required to allow parents
to inspect all instructional materials related to sex education and inform
them of their legal right to do so. Further, schools must now seek
parents’ consent before teaching sex-ed. Many of the claims out there about the
final version of the bill are totally false and the definition of “fake news.” See here.
Incredibly, some of the claims made in this "story" state the exact opposite
of what the bill does! I sincerely doubt these individuals ever read the final
bill or if they have, they have misrepresented the actual law.
The fact is, there were two changes made in the House Education
Committee in relation to two parts of the bill about which I and others had
concerns.
First, the
original version of the bill included, along with sex education, anything
taught in relation to “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI). (I have
not been shy over the course of my service in the Legislature regarding what I
believe about these issues. I was an outspoken supporter and co-author of the
marriage amendment, and have publicly stated my divergent view with the Supreme
Court’s 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. I stand morally and
politically opposed to all sex outside of natural marriage or identifying as a
gender that is different from one’s biological sex.)
At the outset of agreeing to carry the bill in the House, I
expressed reservation about including SOGI as part of sex education. As time
passed my concerns only grew as I realized that many parents, in innocently giving
their consent for sex education, could also be giving consent for their
children to be taught homosexuality and trans-genderism on the same form.
Further, by including SOGI language for the first time in relation to sex
education, state law would presume that teaching SOGI is a normal part of sex
education, which is by no means the case and is not a legislative intent that we
desire to convey. (See below for Indiana’s law in relation to sex education.) Therefore,
in Amendment #22, which I offered in the House Education Committee, we removed
“sexual orientation and gender identity” from the bill.
The second change
came as a result of the public testimony of two organizations that are
dedicated to teaching solid abstinence-only based sex education in many Indiana
schools. These two organizations alone teach tens of thousands of students in
Indiana abstinence-until-marriage sex education according to state law. These organizations
are Clarity based in Columbus,
Indiana and CPR (Creating Positive Relationships)
operating in Central Indiana. These organizations are led by conservative,
pro-life, Christian people seeking to make a positive difference in the lives
of young people and assist schools by providing sound, abstinence-only based
sex education.
The primary concern of these organizations with the original
SB 65, was that many young people have completely disengaged parents (a sad,
though common thing in today’s culture). Disengaged parents would simply fail
to return a consent form, thereby denying their child the only abstinence based
sex education they might ever have received. Arguably, it is children from
these homes that need the abstinence based instruction the most as they are
clearly not getting it at home and are being constantly encouraged toward
promiscuity through pop culture. These groups strongly urged us to use “opt-out”
language. (Read Creating Positive Relationships statement here.)
Despite this, I remained reluctant to go from a strictly “opt-in”
to a strictly “opt-out” provision. After much testimony and discussion, we took
a middle ground approach. Under the House version of the bill signed into law,
parents will receive a form informing them of the upcoming class and their
right to inspect all of the class materials, a summary of the content of the
class, and asking whether they consent or decline the instruction for their
child and a request for their signature. In most schools, this form will be
provided to the parents when they register their child at the beginning of the
school year. When a parent completes this form, the school must abide by that
decision. However, if for whatever reason the parent fails to complete the form
one way or the other, the school is not free to place the child in the
class. Rather, after 21 days the school must send the parent a second form
seeking their consent. After 10 more days, if the parent still fails to
respond, the child will receive the class. Yet, at any time the parent retains
the right to withdraw their child.
These two changes were supported by myself as well as my
co-sponsors of the bill, Representatives Jeff Thompson and Dale DeVon.
I know that some of my advocate friends did not agree with
the changes and would have preferred the strict consent requirement. But they
alone do not speak for the conservative perspective. There are other groups
just as Christian, conservative, and pro-family as they that felt differently.
As legislators, we are in the uncomfortable position of not being able to make
everyone happy all the time. Yet, we try to hear everyone out and use our best
judgment. And I trust that my overall stands for the past eight years make my
moral and philosophical beliefs abundantly clear.
One final note. I want to encourage parents to be constantly
vigilant about what is being taught in your child’s school and, perhaps more
importantly, who is teaching it. You should know all of their teachers. You
should inspect all of their textbooks. And you should not hesitate to intervene
when your Christian faith or morality is undermined. It’s your right. It’s your
responsibility.
In God we Trust,
Representative Timothy Wesco
NOTE: Indiana has a strong “abstinence-only” law for sex
education.
IC 20-30-5-13 Instruction
on human sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases
Sec.
13. Throughout instruction on human sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases,
an accredited school shall:
(1)
require a teacher to teach abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage
as the expected standard for all school age children;
(2)
include in the instruction that abstinence from sexual activity is the only
certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases,
and other associated health problems; and
(3)
include in the instruction that the best way to avoid sexually transmitted
diseases and other associated health problems is to establish a mutually
faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage.
