DA to teachers: state-mandated sex ed course could get you arrested

[Andy9o8 3]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/07/da-to-teachers-new-sex-ed-course-could-get-you-arrested/?hpt=T2

Quote

DA to teachers: New sex ed course could get you arrested

A district attorney in Juneau County, Wisconsin, warned teachers in a memo sent to schools that if they teach the new sexual education curriculum mandated under state law, they could be arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a child.

Because the law requires teachers to instruct children not only about contraceptives but about how to use them, Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth said, schools are forced to encourage students to "engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender."

And since minors can't legally have sex in Wisconsin, teachers would essentially be endorsing the behavior and could be held liable, Southworth said in the letter.

"It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks," he wrote.

In his letter, Southworth said the law would convert sex education classes "into a radical program that sexualizes our children as early as kindergarten. This, in turn, will lead to more child sexual assaults."

Southworth sent the letter to five school districts and said they should drop all sex education curriculum until the law could be changed.

The law doesn't force any schools to teach the sex education classes, but it sets out strict guidelines on what should be taught in the schools that choose to do so. The law passed narrowly in the legislature and was the topic of a fierce battle between Republicans and Democrats: No Republicans voted for it, and it was signed by a Democratic governor.

Those who support the law hail it as a chance to keep down the rate of STDs and teen pregnancies and to properly educate students, but opponents say that rather than giving children all the information necessary to have sex, they should focus on a curriculum of abstinence.

Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, a Democrat, told the Wisconsin State Journal that she believes there's no problem with the law.

She said Southworth, a Republican, is a "zealot" who wrote the letter to try to scare people out of teaching the sexual education classes.

"Using condoms isn't a crime for anyone," Roys told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "This guy is not a credible legal source on this matter, I'm sorry to say. His purpose is to intimidate and create enough panic in the minds of school administrators that they'll turn their backs on young people and their families."

In his letter, Southworth argued that it is a crime and that he's just trying to help schools be aware of the legal danger they could be putting themselves in.

"The teacher could be charged with the crime even if the child does not actually engage in the criminal behavior [of having sex as a minor]," Southworth wrote.

Both the State Journal and the Journal-Sentinel spoke with school administrators who said they were seeking legal advice on the matter.

[livendive 8]

Quote

"It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks," he wrote.

Or telling them to not drink and drive, and suggesting they use a designated driver if they suspect alcohol may be present at a party.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[TrophyHusband 0]

so there's a state law mandating that a someone must do something that is in violation of the law?

nothing comes to mind, but is there anything in the constitution that protects people from laws mandating they must violate the law?

i would like to point out that this DA is an idiot, reguardless of political affiliation.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

so there's a state law mandating that a someone must do something that is in violation of the law?

In my opinion, No; the DA is full of shit.

Here's the language of the Wisconsin statute:

Quote

948.40 Contributing to the delinquency of a child.

948.40(1)
(1) No person may intentionally encourage or contribute to the delinquency of a child. This subsection includes intentionally encouraging or contributing to an act by a child under the age of 10 which would be a delinquent act if committed by a child 10 years of age or older.

948.40(2)
(2) No person responsible for the child's welfare may, by disregard of the welfare of the child, contribute to the delinquency of the child. This subsection includes disregard that contributes to an act by a child under the age of 10 that would be a delinquent act if committed by a child 10 years of age or older.

948.40(3)
(3) Under this section, a person encourages or contributes to the delinquency of a child although the child does not actually become delinquent if the natural and probable consequences of the person's actions or failure to take action would be to cause the child to become delinquent.

I suppose if this went to trial, the argument in court would be whether, while teaching sex ed in a classroom, a teacher describes the manner in which a given contraceptive is used, "the natural and probable consequences" of that description would be that some children in the class would be more likely to unlawfully engage in sex than had they not attended that class. I can just see the "battle of experts" now. I still think that those who would answer that question "yes" are full of shit.

I remember our early sex ed class when I was in the 6th grade in the late 1960s. (It was public school, so there was no "It's a sin and you'll burn in Hell" aspect.) Anyhow, one particular class was taught by our assistant principal, who was probably in his 50s at the time. I still distinctly remember, during the Q & A session, one of the boys asking him what ejaculation felt like. He responded, "Well, it's hard to describe; but it's a very pleasurable sensation." Logically, one might argue that that made the prospect of sex attractive enough to some of us to want to give it a try. So was he contributing to our delinquency? Of course not.

[billvon 3,173]

>Or telling them to not drink and drive, and suggesting they use a
>designated driver if they suspect alcohol may be present at a party.

Straight to jail with you, mister! Those kids would probably have never discovered alcohol if you hadn't been teaching them how to drink and drive.

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

"It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks," he wrote.

Or telling them to not drink and drive, and suggesting they use a designated driver if they suspect alcohol may be present at a party.

Blues,
Dave

Ironically, from looking at the Wisconsin dept of revenue website, it looks like it would be OK to have a 14 year-old working with alcoholic beverages, as long as it wasn't a retail operation. Also it seems to be legal to serve a minor, as long as the parents are present. So you could just take them out to a bar after the party.

[jakee 1,648]

Quote

Those who support the law hail it as a chance to keep down the rate of STDs and teen pregnancies and to properly educate students, but opponents say that rather than giving children all the information necessary to have sex, they should focus on a curriculum of abstinence.

So there's the answer - if we teach nothing at all about sex in schools, kids wont know how to do it!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[headoverheels 334]

Here is the letter:


http://advwisc.3cdn.net/e0faa13153c32e4cb3_2xm6bnfyu.pdf