Let Your Voice Be Heard

Last week I received an email and a phone call telling me about a Town Hall Meeting being held the next day by Utah State Representative Lynn Hemingway to garner public support for his bill that would liberalize Utah’s sex-education curriculum. His proposed changes would open the door to condom demonstrations and other things not appropriate in a classroom of minors, including discussions of homosexual sex (sodomy).

I did some internet research, printed some documentation, rearranged my schedule and attended the meeting, which was also attended by the local press and TV, along with about 30 other people. I got to the library early and was there when the Channel 4 reporter Mark Zinni arrived. I introduced myself and he interviewed me for 1-2 minutes. Click here to see me on Channel 4's coverage.

When the meeting started, I learned it was actually sponsored by the local Planned Parenthood (PP) office. Their spokesman conducted the meeting. She stated that there is empirical evidence that abstinence education has been an utter failure wherever it has been tried, using Utah state’s teen pregnancy statistic as her local proof. She also said comprehensive sex education (their name for the new program they want in the schools) has been highly successful in reducing pregnancy and new cases of STIs (sexually transmitted infections, what we used to call venereal diseases and later called STDs, sexually transmitted diseases, which I guess they were uncomfortable calling diseases, hence the latest politically correct acronym STIs). She turned the time over to Rep. Hemingway. He indicated the pregnancy statistic, along with one indicating an increase in clamydia, were proof that we needed to be giving our children more sex information through the schools. He said parents would be able to opt their children out of the explicit sexuality and contraception discussions, but that there were just too many kids who needed this sexual information, and that teachers would be able to volunteer graphic sex talk as well as respond to questions. Hemingway told of families where both parents worked 2 or 3 jobs, who, when they got home were just too tired to talk to their kids about sex. PP spoke up, indicating that, yes, many parents are just not doing their job, so we need to have this expansion of information in the schools. She also said PP is the largest provider of sexual counseling services in the state, and all because parents aren’t doing their job. I learned they had worked with Rep. Hemingway in drafting the proposed bill, modeled after one they claim to be highly successful in North Carolina. Hemingway then indicated he was there for community input and invited comment.

One young woman told of how she just couldn’t talk to her parents and was so very grateful for having someone like PP to talk to, and would have loved to be able to talk to her teacher. A mother told of children coming home talking about the sex stuff they learned in class, which was the first the mother had heard of it, and would have taken her kids out of the class had she known what was to be discussed. She would rather there were no sex education in schools at all. Another protested the term “protected sex,” saying even “protected sex” is not safe. One local PTA officer said she thought the statistics might be skewed by a recent influx of people from California, who already had the diseases, or were pregnant.

And so it went until I felt I should make my thoughts known. I am paraphrasing, but here is what I said:

My name is Stephen Graham and I am the father of 7 children, and also represent the Standard of Liberty Foundation with more than 7,000 like-minded people on our mailing list. I am reminded of something attributed to Mark Twain, who said no one is safe when the legislature is in session. It seems that sometimes legislators sponsor bills because they feel obligated to do something, anything. I seems that you feel like this: what kind of legislator am I if I don’t legislate? Well, if there is no compelling need for a piece of legislation, then don’t propose it. We already have too many laws on the books. So, first I would say your bill is unnecessary. If girls are getting sexually transmitted diseases, it is not for lack of education. It is primarily the fault of living in our sex-saturated culture. We don’t need your bill, and we don’t need to liberalize our state sex education law. In fact, I agree with this lady, and would rather have no sex education in our schools at all.

Here in my hand I have empirical evidence that abstinence-based education has met with outstanding success. I also hold in my hand empirical evidence that so-called comprehensive sex education has been an utter failure, being responsible for increased rates of promiscuity, sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy. So, your resort to empirical evidence is not persuasive, because I can show as much evidence on my side as you can on yours.

I have heard several stories showing why your comprehensive sex education is needed. This is called anecdotal evidence. Again, I can match you story for story on why expanded sex education is not needed. So, your resort to anecdotal evidence is not persuasive. I would hate to think you would have us revise the law for the whole state based on just a few stories of kids who don’t want to talk to their parents.

It has also been stated that this bill is much needed because some parents fail to talk to their children about sex. Your resort to the we-have-to-do-it-because-the-parents-won’t argument is your weakest point. And I think the most dangerous. If you follow that logic of having the government or the school provide for everything that some parents don’t do, there is no end to what the government or school will do. They will find justification for meddling in every aspect of our lives, as the federal government is attempting to do right now with the energy tax and health care legislation, among others. So, your resort to having the school talk explicit sex to children because parents aren’t is not persuasive.

If your arguments are not persuasive, then we obviously don’t need the bill. But if we can’t resort to those unpersuasive arguments, then where do we resort to find justification for this or any proposed law? We resort to the community who is to be affected by the law. In this case it is a state law, so our resort should be to the people of the state. What are the desires, beliefs, and values of the citizens of the state? You say you at PP are the largest provider of sexual counseling in the state. I say you are out of step with the values of the people of the state. Rep. Hemingway, I think you will find that what you are proposing here is also not in keeping with the values of the citizens. I am sure you will find that majority of the people hold to traditional morality, and that they would rather have time-tested, God-based values as the foundation of their laws on which our culture is built.

So, we don’t need your bill, and I hope you won’t file it. If it is filed, I hope it dies in the committee. Thank you.

As I say, that is a paraphrase, but the points made are valid. If you ever get into a discussion and your adversary resorts to using any of the 3 methods just discussed: Empirical evidence, anecdotal evidence, failure of responsible parties to perform perfectly; if you find yourself in that situation, then try using the refutations discussed above. You should be able to neutralize their points, and make good points of your own from your traditional, God-based, time-tested values. Another thought is that when your adversary makes a statement which sounds like justification of their stance, it will invariably turn out to be not true. And you can say just that. “That is not true.” They will then resort to one of a number of fall-back positions. The will say, “Well everyone knows that . . .”, “It is a known fact that . . ,” “It was reported on TV ( on the radio, in the newspaper) that . . .” The answer to all these is, “That is not true.” Then ask them to provide support for their statements. They will not be able to do so. Then you can make your statement of truth and not be on the defensive. You want to stay on topic and not let them distract you with meaningless sidetrack arguments.

Here’s one more point. When you hear of meetings or gatherings, attend and speak up. It is right and good to stand for your beliefs and values. If we sit back and quietly watch while others have their way with our community, country, and culture, one day we will wake up and be horrified at what we find.

 

-Stephen Graham

Return to VOICE page.
Return to WELCOME page.