Northeast Assembly Thread

[Alexander Hamilton]

I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

Anyone has the right to keep their opinion and beliefs, but anyone should be given the information to make their choice. Parents haven't the right to keep their children in ignocance for religious reasons.

Agreed. We exempted private schools but there is no reason people with strong religious convictions should be objecting to this. I mean, they obviously created the kid in the first place so they're having sex. Their kids also need to know how to approach sex safely and intelligently.

Christian teaching on birth control and sex outside of marriage differs from what you'd propose students be required to be lectured about in school.  Parents should have the ultimate authority on their childrens' moral education, not the state.  Therefore, I simply can't support this bill.

This bill doesn't impose morals on students. It merely teaches techniques of safety and protection of health and life changing consequences. Christians surely don't more teen pregnancies and abortions than would happen with this bill in effect, do they?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

Anyone has the right to keep their opinion and beliefs, but anyone should be given the information to make their choice. Parents haven't the right to keep their children in ignocance for religious reasons.

Agreed. We exempted private schools but there is no reason people with strong religious convictions should be objecting to this. I mean, they obviously created the kid in the first place so they're having sex. Their kids also need to know how to approach sex safely and intelligently.

Which approachment is not limited to their teenage period.

[cinyc]

I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'd like to point out that the Kern High School District requires sexual education. The KHSD is run by theocrats-- literally, people who spend millions to put "In God We Trust" in every classroom and seeks to implement school prayer, and containing a board member who punched out a Prop 8 opponent (a homosexual 20 something).

[cinyc]

I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Under the SOAP (which this bill may or may not be subject to), we vote on all unfriendly amendments at the end of the 72-hour debate period.

Am I correct that this and the homosexuality amendment are the two unfriendly ones and everything else proposed so far was accepted?

On the merits my amendment - I don't think the law is constitutional without it.  I believe it violates the Atlasian and Northeast Constitution's prohibitions on enacting laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion in its current form.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Under the SOAP (which this bill may or may not be subject to), we vote on all unfriendly amendments at the end of the 72-hour debate period.

Am I correct that this and the homosexuality amendment are the two unfriendly ones and everything else proposed so far was accepted?

On the merits my amendment - I don't think the law is constitutional without it.  I believe it violates the Atlasian and Northeast Constitution's prohibitions on enacting laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion in its current form.

This bill doesn't have anything to do with religion.

[cinyc]

I'd like to point out that the Kern High School District requires sexual education. The KHSD is run by theocrats-- literally, people who spend millions to put "In God We Trust" in every classroom and seeks to implement school prayer, and containing a board member who punched out a Prop 8 opponent (a homosexual 20 something).

Really?  Here's what the Kern County HS District's own website says about the "required" HIV/AIDS Prevention Course:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This bill doesn't have anything to do with religion.

It forces children to attend a sex education class despite their parents' legitimate religious objections to what is being taught about things like contraception.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I attended a KHSD school. The HIV/AIDS is a 3 day class. The sexual health class is a semester long, which most students take as a freshman or in summer school. I personally did not attend the HIV/AIDS seminar but HIV/AIDS is covered in the sexual health class.

There should be no religious objections to promoting safer sexual practices as an alternative to risky sexual practices. There should be no religious objections to presenting alternatives to abortion such as adoption. There should be no religious objections to teaching how to look for cancers such as breast cancer.

EDIT: I didn't even have my parents sign the form to opt out of the 3 day seminar, I just didn't do it. It isn't "required" or part of a grade or anything. Every single student was required to take the semester course to graduate though.

[Хahar 🤔]

I attended a KHSD school.

Kind of off-topic, but holy ѕhit, the Wikipedia article for that is one of the worst things I've ever read.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

[cinyc]

I attended a KHSD school. The HIV/AIDS is a 3 day class. The sexual health class is a semester long, which most students take as a freshman or in summer school. I personally did not attend the HIV/AIDS seminar but HIV/AIDS is covered in the sexual health class.

There should be no religious objections to promoting safer sexual practices as an alternative to risky sexual practices. There should be no religious objections to presenting alternatives to abortion such as adoption. There should be no religious objections to teaching how to look for cancers such as breast cancer.

EDIT: I didn't even have my parents sign the form to opt out of the 3 day seminar, I just didn't do it. It isn't "required" or part of a grade or anything. Every single student was required to take the semester course to graduate though.

Again, even in ultra-liberal California, the law gives parents the right to opt their children out of high school sexual health education classes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My amendment requests nothing less.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

Yes. The whole point of the bill is that it includes provisions that can satisfy everybody in someway. The idea of religious exemption will ultimately kill the bill, as there will no longer be the support needed to pass this.

[Smid]

I rise to speak in favour of the Bill, and look forward to debating the foreshadowed amendments.

A comprehensive sexual education programme in high schools will no doubt reduce the prevalance of abortion in the Northeast. I believe that this is a worthwhile goal and that this Bill will establish such an education programme.

I believe that nothing in this Bill imposes a constraint on the religious practices of parents, nor students, however I recognise the right of parents to make that decision for themselves and if necessary, opt-out of classes taught at their child's school.

The teaching of contraceptives and safe sex practices will not merely reduce the teen pregnancy rate in the Northeast, but that when the current students are married or in a long-term committed relationship, they will have a thorough understanding of the means of preventing an unplanned pregnancy if they so choose. As young adult couples are represented in abortion statistics, in years ahead, this Bill will help to reduce not just teen abortion figures, but also the number of abortions sought by young adult couples.

Despite my support for the teaching of contraceptive and safe sex methods, I am particularly pleased that abstinence will still be encouraged of the students and that such encouragement will not be taught from a moral or religious perspective - as this is certainly a matter for parental instruction - but will rather be taught from a practical perspective as a certain means of preventing both pregnancy and STDs.

I commend this Bill to the House.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I attended a KHSD school. The HIV/AIDS is a 3 day class. The sexual health class is a semester long, which most students take as a freshman or in summer school. I personally did not attend the HIV/AIDS seminar but HIV/AIDS is covered in the sexual health class.

There should be no religious objections to promoting safer sexual practices as an alternative to risky sexual practices. There should be no religious objections to presenting alternatives to abortion such as adoption. There should be no religious objections to teaching how to look for cancers such as breast cancer.

EDIT: I didn't even have my parents sign the form to opt out of the 3 day seminar, I just didn't do it. It isn't "required" or part of a grade or anything. Every single student was required to take the semester course to graduate though.

Again, even in ultra-liberal California, the law gives parents the right to opt their children out of high school sexual health education classes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My amendment requests nothing less.

CA is not ultra-liberal. Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York are "ultra-liberal".

That particular example, again, applies only to the specific 3-day or week-long seminars focusing mostly on HIV/AIDS. This bill is requiring this as a class to graduate from high school. CA kids still have to take the regular class.

This bill can be considered "public safety." Anything we can do to encourage frequent testing and safe sex practices, as well as anything that may lower the STD rate, protect not only individuals, but the community and region as a whole. Unless a couple is each others' only partner EVER, they are getting mixed in with everyone else's potential diseases. Obviously we can't legislate STDs and abortions and pregnancies and breast cancer out of existence, but we sure can try as hard as we can at the regional level to minimize their reach.

[God-Empress Stacey I of House Abrams]

I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

Precisely. I will never support this because it makes no sense.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

Precisely. I will never support this because it makes no sense.

We can give it a fair vote but I doubt it passes.

[God-Empress Stacey I of House Abrams]

I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

Precisely. I will never support this because it makes no sense.

We can give it a fair vote but I doubt it passes.

It won't.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Can we end debate on this amendment?

Or better yet, can it get tabled?

[God-Empress Stacey I of House Abrams]

Can we end debate on this amendment?

Well, it still ended in fact.

[cinyc]

CA is not ultra-liberal. Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York are "ultra-liberal".

That particular example, again, applies only to the specific 3-day or week-long seminars focusing mostly on HIV/AIDS. This bill is requiring this as a class to graduate from high school. CA kids still have to take the regular class.

This bill can be considered "public safety." Anything we can do to encourage frequent testing and safe sex practices, as well as anything that may lower the STD rate, protect not only individuals, but the community and region as a whole. Unless a couple is each others' only partner EVER, they are getting mixed in with everyone else's potential diseases. Obviously we can't legislate STDs and abortions and pregnancies and breast cancer out of existence, but we sure can try as hard as we can at the regional level to minimize their reach.

You're wrong about CA's law.  It gives a parental opt-out for all sex ed classes, not just HIV education.

And funny you should mention Vermont - their law has a parental opt-out:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As do the laws of Maine:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and Connecticut:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rhode Island:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Massachusetts:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

AND New York

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In fact, almost every state that does not require solely abstinence-only sex education provides for some form of  parental opt-out.   And in my opinion, the law in the remaining handful of states is suspect.

Why shouldn't the Northeast law provide an opt-out?  It would put our law in line with almost all others.

[cinyc]

Can we end debate on this amendment?

Your law was proposed at 02:49:35 am Eastern on Friday, October 2.  Under the SOAP, it should be open for debate until 02:49:35 am Eastern on Monday, October 5.  Votes on the two(?) unfriendly amendments should occur from that time until 02:49:35 am on Tuesday, October 6.  A vote on the final bill will be held thereafter, open for 24 hours after the Lt. Governor promptly certifies the vote on the unfriendly amendments - likely some time on Wednesday, October 7.

Unless you want to move to hold a vote earlier.  That vote would have to be open for 24 hours, which will move the votes on the amendments up to tomorrow, if successful.  Not much of a change, really - maybe half-a-day.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

In fact, almost every state that does not require solely abstinence-only sex education provides for some form of  parental opt-out.   And in my opinion, the law in the remaining handful of states is suspect.

Why shouldn't the Northeast law provide an opt-out?  It would put our law in line with almost all others.

Perhaps it's because the Northeast is more courageous on this issue?

I understand the want to cop out for "religious reasons," but the truth is that there's really nothing to be taught in the original that specifically conflicts with religion.  There's nothing in the bible that says that boys don't have penises, and there's nothing in the bible that says condoms don't prevent the spread of disease.

It's a clear priority of the class to mention that abstinence is the only way to prevent disease and pregnancy for sure.  If parents have concerns, they should supplement the class with their own teachings that, even though condoms are available, it's morally wrong to have sex before you're married, or that homosexuality is a sinful choice, or whatever.

This class does not lecture about morals, it simply provides factual information that, frankly, it's crucial people wind up hearing.  Opt-out is a relic of our conservative, puritan heritage.

[cinyc]

Perhaps it's because the Northeast is more courageous on this issue?

I understand the want to cop out for "religious reasons," but the truth is that there's really nothing to be taught in the original that specifically conflicts with religion.  There's nothing in the bible that says that boys don't have penises, and there's nothing in the bible that says condoms don't prevent the spread of disease.

It's a clear priority of the class to mention that abstinence is the only way to prevent disease and pregnancy for sure.  If parents have concerns, they should supplement the class with their own teachings that, even though condoms are available, it's morally wrong to have sex before you're married, or that homosexuality is a sinful choice, or whatever.

This class does not lecture about morals, it simply provides factual information that, frankly, it's crucial people wind up hearing.  Opt-out is a relic of our conservative, puritan heritage.

Many Christian churches teach that sex outside of wedlock is a sin, the ONLY permissible, 100% effective method of birth control is abstinence, and the use of condoms or other birth control methods is sinful.  It is in the Bible - spilling the seed and all that.  This class WILL lecture about morals - or more accurately, amorality - that using birth control is just a-okay, when many religious traditions teach otherwise.

If parents have concerns that the state will teach their children differently on moral matters, then they should be able to take them out of those classes without penalty.   Parents have the primary responsibility for the moral education of their children, not the state.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Many Christian churches teach that sex outside of wedlock is a sin, the ONLY permissible, 100% effective method of birth control is abstinence, and the use of condoms or other birth control methods is sinful.  It is in the Bible - spilling the seed and all that.  This class WILL lecture about morals - or more accurate, amorality - that using birth control is just a-okay, when many religious traditions teach otherwise.

If parents have concerns that the state will teach their children differently on moral matters, then they should be able to take them out of those classes without penalty.   Parents have the primary responsibility for the moral education of their children, not the state.

The course presumably does not teach that it is "okay" that people have sex outside of wedlock, and it does not teach that condoms are not a sin—simply the mechanics of how they work and how they prevent disease.

The idea is to present information without judgement.  Parents are free, like I said, to supplement the class by providing the lecture about morality.