Scott Southworth, the arch-conservative District Attorney of Juneau County, has threatened to criminally charge teachers who dare teach sex education in Juneau County schools, arguing that a new state curriculum law requiring schools that have sex education programs to tell students how to use condoms and other contraceptives encourages sex among children, which is clearly illegal:
The new law “promotes the sexualization – and sexual assault – of our children,” Southworth wrote in a March 24 letter to officials within five school districts. He urged the districts to suspend their sex education programs and transfer their anatomy curriculum to a science course until the legislature changes the law.
“Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender,” he wrote. “It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks.”
What Scott Southworth conveniently seemed to ignore in his rush to ideological judgment is the fact that current state law – as well as the law that will go into effect in the fall – both allow parents to opt their children out of sex education. What’s more, Southworth’s analogy that teaching sex education to children encourages them to engage in sexual behavior is akin to teaching children about alcohol use and then instructing them how to make mixed alcoholic drinks is fundamentally flawed. Since Scott Southworth is fond of analogies, here’s one that’s more appropriate (and logical), given Southworth’s concerns about sex education encouraging children to engage in sexual behavior: teaching children sex education and then instructing them on sexual positions would be akin to teaching children about alcohol use and then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks.
Teaching kids to use cleaning products encourages them to make meth.
Cleaning products/meth is a horrible analogy. Making meth is a MISUSE of cleaning products. Teaching about condoms and having sex is the intended use for them.
A better analogy is when liberals pass out clean needles to addicts. The activity is illegal, but they apparently want them to be “safe” when they shoot up.
So you got the fact it was a horrible analogy, but agree with the DA that “Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior…”?
How does that make any sense?
Isn’t the job of a DA to enforce laws, not make them up?
No, it’s the DA’s job, (like all lawyers) to present the law in a manner that is most favorable to their clients. It’s the Judge’s job to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
Southworth is definitely the chaff.
His argument would be fun to respond to.
I’d take it pro bono
I’d take it pro bono as well.