This is clearly a bone thrown to the religious extremists for delivering votes to Scott Walker. Hormones and immature frontal lobes lead to risky behavior in teens. Taking an intellectual and/or moral approach will not work with every teen, a multi-tiered approach will be more effective.

It sure seems that Scott Walker's "Jobs" platform was a subterfuge, a false front hiding the Koch Brothers' true radical political agenda. Recall Scott Walker and get someone in the Governor's seat who will produce, not hemorrhage, jobs in Wisconsin!

Bren- Really? Isn't teaching children sex education the responsibility of the parents? We've tried, as a society, to make our schools take on the responsibilities from everything to providing meals, to teaching our children political values on sex. That is not public educations job. We are not equipped to teach morals, and sexual activity is a moral value. What we need to do is teach parents responsibility and not abdicate it to the government.

Yeah, except parents haven't picked up on that responsibility. Abstinence is another one of those conservative chestnuts that sounds good on paper but fails in practice.

Actually, Keith, when practiced it's 100% effective.

But it really is too much to expect that anyone would take it seriously in this day and age. Single motherhood is celebrated, being a promiscuous male is considered part of the culture. People who elect to not have sex 'til they're married are considered freaks of nature or religious nuts.

Nothing is shameful anymore (except perhaps thinking it might be good if a few things still were) and the only thing that ever made abstinence a realistic option was when there was actually some shame attached to getting knocked up while still single.

Yea, all the jobs at Planned Parenthood helping kids get rid of there kids

Roger-
Calling people idiots does not make YOU come across as someone who is capable of independent thought.
If you want to be walked through the "medically correct" and scientific reasons why abstinence is favored both by the Center for Disease Control and by the vast majority of American parents and teens, read the article at http://sytereitz.com/2011/10/wisconsin-sex-ed-there%e2%80%99s-an-elephant-in-the-room/ .

@Syte - abstinence is favored by everyone, but if it were being practiced as much as it is favored, I think it's logical to believe teen pregnancy and STD rates would not be as high as they are. Thus, while abstinence is the very best, 100% route to go, it's not the reality. Until it is, we need to arm our kids with knowledge, not pretend they aren't doing one thing and saying another.

The Heritage Foundation of course to mollify their conservative minions is all for abstinence, but even they recognize it isn't working -- http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/07/study-on-youth-abstinence-and-stds-the-bigger-picture/ -- though by God, they wish it would.

Because we know its the money that matters and not really the people.

agreed heather, and the schools are usually pretty good about keeping the parent up to date about what will be taught and the Parents can opt out as well. So why do we need to waste money and time changing a law that works? And if your against it you can opt your child out, it makes no sense to me.

@Jay - good point about parental notification. Every time one of our kids was in Health, we had to sign a note acknowledging our understanding of what would be taught and giving permission.

I have to be with Jay and Heather on this one. First thing, I dont know of a public school that is not teaching abstinence as the first option to avoid pregnancy. Second, for the ideologically right, welfare and abortions are major concerns. But so is NFP for some reason (well, in their defense, it is their religious beliefs and it clearly says in the constitution, a document that they hold on level with the bible, church and state should join together to force beliefs on others). If you are right wing and had to choose compromise (I know, I know) by selecting 2 out of 3 items, I think giving up on teaching that abstinence is the only way might be an easy choice. All methods= less possibility of pregnancy.

Well, I wouldnt have to guess to tell you that if he were to become president that he would no longer be governor. I will let you think about that one for a while.

Given Scooter McPuppeye's penchant for thinking outside of the box, I'm sure he could be find a way to bully Congress in to allowing him to be President AND Governor of Wisconsin at the same time...Governor of every state, and President, like a King!!

The topic is the end of a law, not Scooters political future. One depressing topic at a time please.

@Brian Dey...Your logic is, that because religion is prohibited by the constitution and constitutional interpretation by the courts it is a policy of legal discrimination by our legally formed government. Sex education is designed to educate our youth to factual knowledge, not moral knowledge. Morality and ethics is the domain of the family, religious institutions and the community at large. The legislation advocated by Senator Mary Lazich is just another case of social conservatives legislating their particular brand of morality. It joins the other dysfunctional statutes on the state's code such as treating all sexual conduct before the age of 18 as acts of criminal behavior. Brilliant, just brilliant.

Lyle- Religion is not, has not, or never been prohibited by the Constitution.
the government is prohibited from "establishing religion." There is a huge difference. I'm pretty sure that allowing a prayer meeting of Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc... is not "establishing religion." The only one that interprets it that way is the far left. And you argue that teaching abstinence sise by side with other forms of birth control is somehow just a rightwing moral cause, but abstaining is the only known 100% form of birth control and th only known 100% prevention method of sexually transmitted disease. So if our legislation requires sex education, why is it so offensive to the far left that abstinence is required in the lesson plan. Is the far left incapable of abstaining from sexual activity? I guess I don't get it, but then again, the far left agenda has always been about living freely, unless you are a Christian.

@Brian Dey....What you say is true concerning prohibition of religion by the constitution and only addresses establishment as being unconstitutional. However, over the course of a little over two hundred years, the establishment clause has been further defined prohibiting such things as school prayer, etc, etc. This is not a right or left issue, but an interpretation by the US Supreme Court. Can that interpretation change, of course it can; but for now it is the law.

I don't object to teaching abstinence only in public school sex education classes. However, the issue is teaching of abstinence in leiu of teaching fact based sex education, as designed by Planned Parenthood. The social conservatives in the state have attacked Planned Parenthood and is attempting to use the political process to shut them down. That is, in fact, an attack on women's health for many of the poor and disadvantaged who primarily use the services.

What are you talking about? God doesn't belong in schools, the same way it doesn't belong in politics, business, or culture. How lazy are you people, teach your own kids about whatever God you believe in, you expect other people to do it for you?

By the way, when you you use code words like "apes" and "animals" you are revealing your not-so obfuscated racism. Please stop. Christians are supposed to love everyone.

@Craig: Do you also believe dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time? Help me out on the evidence for that theory.

For those people who are dumb as a box of rocks and who think the above is a racist remark.: Please re read the post. Nothing at all is racist there, as a matter of fact a close friend of mine who is black is the person who I borrowed the phrase from. In case you have no intelligence whatsoever from smoking rock, let me explain it to you. Current sex ed includes lesbian/ gay sex and alternative sex. Just a year ago we heard about the teacher who asked kids how they knew they were straight if they had not tried homesexual relations.
The comment about prohibiting God in schools, and the theory of evolution needs no explaination- even if you are a rock smoking switch hitter you should understand this.

@Craig...I can't believe that you claim there is an "anything goes" curriculum. Schools do not cause or advocate sexual orientation. I don't see that the open acknowledgement of differences in sexual orientation is causing any social breakdown.

G-d never belonged in the schools in the first place. Constitutionally it is forbidden We are all a product of biological evolution. Are we apes, emphatically no! Do we share common ancestors, yes. We are animals and only through social community and cognition are we able to separate ourselves from our animal instincts. These are facts that you need to accept.

@Craig -

Hoffa understands your point and stands with you on this one! It doesn't even have to be about God, but rather just common sense moral and ethical behavior. After all, how many moral and ethical lessons were contained within the contents of the TV show “Leave It To Beaver,” and all without even mentioning God or religion. Traditional values, pure and simple!

@craig: why are you insinuating that all who have a different opinion are rock smoking immoral sexual deviants? If your view was reasonable

@MS....if you have to ask that question there is no way I can explain the answer to you in a way you can comprehend.

Craig, I have to ask you if sending children uninformed into a sophisticated world is the best way to equip them for success. I can't speak for anyone else, but I was never taught in school that we were descended from apes/animals--we learned that there were multiple approaches and learned about each.
As for behavior, parents are the primary influencers in a child's life. Teachers and schools provide education (although they become mentors and refuge for many at-risk children). It's the parents' job to teach children to be good Christians if that is their faith, and to respect all people, regardless of gender, ethnicity, disability and/or faith.

@ Bren: I don't think my kid is uninformed while entering a sophisticated world- the only way to know that is wait 20 years and see what happens. She is in premed at UW-Madison, so it will be a while before I know if I did anything right.
As far as I know the curriculum only teaches evolution, creationism is not taught. You are correct that this is the parent's duty, as is teaching moral values. Regardless of faith, values are still an important lesson everyone should have before leaving the nest. I am not an advocate for school prayer, but I also do not believe in the freedom 'from' religion mentality that has become the norm.

Lyle- Then why is it okay that some schools have after school groups for gay/lesbian/transgender and are not allowed to have a prayer group?

@Brian Dey...Big difference between a prayer group and LGBT group. Last I looked, LGBT is not a religion and is secular only; no different than the chess club. Prayer groups violate the establishment clause.

Lyle- See, this is what is truly wrong with our society. The government is allowed to discriminate against religion, but not on sexual preference? No wonder our country is as messed up as it is. While you may be offended if I pray to God, but it's okay for our government to teach our children about sex.

Why did everyone all of a sudden flock to such an old board - October 29th?

Well, if everyone started their own business, then there would be no one to work for said businesses, or cops, or teachers, or anything other than a service economy. Ironically, with no one to serve. Talk about socialism, jesus...You can't sell widgets, if everyone else sells widgets too.

@Cinda68...This issue shouldn't even be on the table at this time. A "special session" is for a specific purpose. If the legislature wants to take up the question in a future regular session, more power to them.

It's state-mandated abstinence education, with local districts getting to decide if they teach birth control. Current law requires both, or a letter home to parents saying they're not teaching about birth control.

@Cinda58...I challenge some of your assertions. In the first place, Wisconsin unemployment has never been at the levels you are citing. That figure you quote reflects a national figure., The Healthy Youth Bill was not drafted during a special session and came out of the regular legislative session in 2010.

MustangSally... As someone who dabbles in social, ethical and moral philosophy; morality is not dependent on a G-d concept to exist. Only certain types of morality has a G-d as its founding principle. Judaic, Islamic and Christianity all are an outgrowth of G-d morality. However, it is proven over and over that one doesn't need to believe in a supreme being to be moral and ethical. Morals represent the governing rules of a society and may or may not be transferred into statutory forms.

Rather than call what you propose as mandatory sterilization, it would be better described as delayed fecundity. As the population soars, it is highly possible to enact what you are proposing. Whether this is a moral act or not can be debated. But, it is highly likely that delaying fecundity and requiring a child permit would have some very negative consequences, including social and biological engineering. Delaying fecundity may be acceptable but not child permits.

Personally, I don’t think that the Republican agenda here will effectively correct the situation. However, at least the Republicans are identifying the true root cause of the problem – a break down in traditional societal/family values as well as in the sanctity of certain institutions and the importance that society places upon such. On the other hand, the Democrats appear to just want to ignore this part of the reality or act like it just doesn’t exist or matter, which is also WRONG.

So, here’s the answer – we’ll teach the kids everything in public schools, but do in such a way that is sensitive to and encourages or at least attempts to preserve traditional societal/family values. Then, if you’re a teen that ends up getting pregnant out of wed-lock, you’re on your own as you’ve already been educated and warned – no government assistance / hand out for you. Only then will we truly see a turn around in this situation. And yes, a lot of people will probably suffer because of such changes, but you can’t keep on encouraging risky/stupid behavior by providing a safety net for such behavior.

Otherwise, where does it stop? After all, wasn’t Wall Street just exercising the exact same mindset, logic, and rational as an unmarried teen couple engaging in sexual intercourse? What’s so different about the lust for greed vs the lust for sex that you justify one over the other as being acceptable for overriding rational decision making? And yet, you don’t believe that Wall Street deserved the bail out it got. So why should stupid teens get a bail out then either?

Instead of merely accepting “the reality of adolescent behavior” in our policy decisions, shouldn’t we at least use those policy decisions to try and change or at least mold the societal reality and implications of such decisions in the hopes that “the reality” starts to change back to how it used to be? After all, what empowered teens to start engaging in sex around the 1950’s – the automobile and the independence and freedom away from the control/rule of their parents. Well, with privilege should also come responsibility – that’s what I was taught and the way in which I was raised by my parents. Today, we’re (parents) just handing out privileges without any congruent expectant responsibility. And they supposedly call this progressive thinking.

Guess what – it’s not working and it appears to actually be the root cause of the problem in this instance. We need to go back to instilling strong individual and societal values, stigmatizing against unmarried teen pregnancies. Only then do we truly begin to fix ‘the problem.’

@MustangSally...Handing out condoms would be a good treat for certain numbers of youth.

Instilling morality in our youth is the responsibility of the parents, families and their local social environment. You can't legislate morality you can only reinforce it. We have to recognize that there is a significant difference between instinctual behavior and socially appropriate behavior. We also have to recognize that a number of people vary in their views of what appropriate behavior consists of.

I use the G-d symbol to indicate the supreme being instead of fully spelling it out; it is because of my Jewish religious tradition and the avoidance of pronouncing His name, which is forbidden. .

What if the party in power was Islamic and decided that they wanted their political beliefs as the foundation for our youth? I am sure that we would be up in arms about that. But, when it is Christians, its ok. And, now a reply from AWD...

@Say What? -

I guess we have a delayed response from AWD! Bob McBride informed over on another board that AWD was busy "denying candy to trick or treaters from outside the neighborhood."

God-bless that Angry White Dude! Without him, Patch just wouldn't be the same, nor would there be as many comments deleted by the administrator :-)

@Craig...the only significant flaw is your thinking. You are attributing reverse discrimination to be at the basis of all the problems. Simply inaccurate and no basis in reality.

I heard about these kids with cancer and their baseball caps. I try to knock the hats off their heads whenever I get a chance. Where do they get off wearing hats?

Oh, was that not the point you were getting at? Me either.

Lyle I do not think it is reverse discrimination- I consider it ignorance. Whatever you want to call it; it is not right.

@Craig -

Good point!

It's taking political correctness to the extreme and combining it with stupidity - pure and simple.

See the second post to the article........

Nice, knew it wouldn't take long. Wonder if Bren has the "Koch Brothers" on a hot key.

@greg...Strange that you would use that analogy with Phillip Morris. They have in fact funded anti-smoking education. Planned Parenthood has put together the most comprehensive sex education program available. As a non-profit entity, Planned Parenthood has done more for the common good than than any number of other non-profits and government agencies. They have addressed a significant social issue with rationality and sensitivity. They have assisted in promoting public health and provided health services to any number of women who would otherwise be denied. To publicly deride the organization for providing a needed service, borders on the absurd.

For many, they provide the means to take personal responsibility for their own health and reproduction. For those of us who support personal responsibility, their very existence supports such responsibility.

@Lyle -

Planned Parenthood is all fine and dandy and can do whatever they want so long as they 1) operate within the confines of the law and regulatory regime applicable to their organization/operations, and 2) aren't being funded by taxpayers.

@JRH...Planned Parenthood strictly operates within the limits of the law. In addition, the public funding they have received is for privatized services. Public funding has not been used for pregnancy termination, that is through private donation only.

Granted, it's been a long time since, but I hardly think a discussion of the "emotional/social aspects of choices and really go(ing) through scenarios" in 6th and 7th grade would have registered with me or anyone else I knew (and, btw, even though it was a zillion years ago I do remember an elective sex ed class offered outside of regular school hours that did, in fact, include some of that, to no particular avail). Even if it had, by the time I was 14-16 anything short of telling me it was going to fall off wasn't about to rein in 24 months of rutting season urges. And I was not alone. The girls weren't much better. We all had a pretty good idea what the consequences were - to say it didn't really register, aside from shoplifting some protection, was an understatement.

If you want to "get real", try putting yourself back in those days, think about what you were thinking about and how you reacted to anything of that nature presented to you by a teacher or parent. Eyes rolled then and now. Frankly you'd be better off doing what you can to scare the bejesus out of them at that age until they hit about 17-18, at which point acting responsibly might once again start to trump the hormonal urges to a degree.

The reason we weren't doing it in 6th and 7th grade back then was because a good number of us had no idea what "it" was. Had we been faced with simulated versions of it on TV and the real thing on the internet like now, we probably would have.

@Bob McBride...I got a kick out of your description of the White Fish Bay rut. Fortunately, things have changed and I deal with a lot of adolescents who have are in the middle of taking their health classes or have recently completed it. They seem to be much more informed and pretty matter of fact about the experience. However, that doesn't change the fact they are still in full rut, but I don't worry that they will dealing with unwanted pregnancies or becoming an STD cesspool. Some things the left has done is actually working and promoting a better society.

Lyle, I think one thing we need to admit here is that, just as we were pretty good at it in our day, kids today are perfectly capable of telling us what we want to hear and, at the next opportunity to contradict themselves, will do so. If you're not worried about it, you should be. That being said, there's really nothing you can do about it.

Kids will be kids, they'll continue to snow their parents and others and succumb to temptation. There's a wealth of information we have no control over that's readily available to kids today that wasn't in the past, so thinking we actually can influence what they think to the degree we could when we DID have better control over that information is probably wishful thinking.

I will say that "back in the day" as one moved southward from Whitefish Bay, the percentage of agreeable female companions increased so that by the time one reached the "East Side", the percentage who were intimidatingly knowledgable and aggressively active was quite high. Therefore I'm not sure I agree with you regarding the relative value of what the left may have brought to the equation. I might, however if I was 15 again.

@reg...The sex ed classes do teach abstinence only as well as safe sex. Parents, under the current law can opt out of their children attending sex ed classes. Don't smoke and don't drink campaigns have only one simply message. Sex ed has an expended message to cover a wider contingency of human adolescent behavior. It's time to begin living in the 21st century and not the world of the 1950s middle class white America.

Please, all that is just to make you feel better about having your side teach things that a 6th grader has no business knowing ,and leave out the white thing I’ll take the unwed birth rate of the 1950’s white or black, the racism of low expectations is part of the problem.

@greg...I don't know about your district, but the Milwaukee North Shore districts wait until the students are in the 9th grade. There may be exceptions, but the health classes are given in the 9th grade.

Out of wedlock births were fewer in number during the 1950s and 1960s primarily that many couples participated in what was called a "shotgun wedding". As public attitudes have changed about the questions of legitimacy and the social pejorative label of "bastard", a child born out of wedlock subsequently lost their illegitimate label, creating equality at birth. I really don't think we want to return to those days when unwanted pregnant girls disappear while pregnant or participated in back alley abortions. All of those things went on during the "golden age" of sexual abstinence. It is a out sight, out of mind mentality.