INDIANAPOLIS — A bill surrounding sexual education curriculum requirements in the state of Indiana may change a requirement surrounding teaching teens about consent within the state, causing debate at a recent committee meeting.
Senate Bill 442, titled “instruction on human sexuality,” was written by Indiana State Republican Senators Gary Byrne, Jeff Raatz and Michael Young. According to the Indiana General Assembly’s website, the bill centers around school districts obtaining consent from parents before materials are added to sex ed courses.
After the bill passed the Indiana Senate, the Indiana House of Representatives added two amendments, one of which added a requirement that the materials include a video that shows students a developing fetus. Another addition included the teaching of the importance of consent in sexual situations.
“…Include in the instruction the importance of consent to sexual activity between two individuals,” the amendment added to the original bill.
However, during a recent conference committee on the bill, consisting of lawmakers in both the Indiana Senate and the Indiana House of Representatives, that particular amendment, which was added to the bill, was taken out by one of the bill’s original authors.
Byrne, a Republican from Corydon, said that school boards should be able to choose whether or not the curriculum should include the topic surrounding the importance of consent to sexual activity.
“That still can happen,” he said during the meeting. “We’re just not going to require it in this bill.”
In response to Byrne, Indiana State Rep. Tonya Pfaff, a Democrat from Terre Haute, said that she does not understand how lawmakers could not agree that teaching consent is important as part of sexual education.
“It protects both boy and girl, man and woman,” she said. “We are talking about teenagers who sometimes don’t learn that they can say no! To me, this is just, we’re protecting our youth. So I just need an explanation for why you’d take it out.”
Byrne said he did not “disagree” with what Pfaff was saying, but said that the bill is going to allow local entities to decide.
“We don’t have time to get into a debate on that. I understand your concern and appreciate that,” Byrne said. “This is a decision that I made to not have it in there. It doesn’t mean it can’t be done. I agree with what you’re trying to do there. Local school boards can still do that.”
During the discussion, Indiana State Senator Ed Delaney, a Democrat from Indianapolis, asked Byrne to identify the locations where it is a problem to talk about consent.
“I would like to know. And I think the people who live there would like to know that the issue of consent is somehow debated among men and women in that district,” Delaney said.
Byrne continued to respond that he would like it to be left up to local control.
“So there must be places where they don’t want to talk about consent when you’re dealing with young women and their rights,” Delaney responded. “Where are those places in my state? You’re insulting my state!”
“I understand your concerns,” Byrne responded
“Holy Moses!” Delaney said.
Indiana State Rep. Becky Cash, a Republican from Lebanon, offered another way to approach consent within the bill, stating that it should be discussed “as age appropriate.”
“If they were teaching 6th or 7th grade, it might be we stay in our bubble, right?” Cash said. “We don’t touch somebody, we don’t, whereas at the high school level, you know. Whatever you decide to do with that. If you decide to leave it in there, maybe it could be in line with age appropriateness.”
Officials with the ACLU of Indiana said that they oppose the bill as a whole, stressing that this bill politicizes sex education.
“All students deserve a high-quality and inclusive sexual health education,” officials with the ACLU said on their website about the bill. “SB 442 politicizes this education and largely duplicates actions school districts are already required to do.”
Senate Bill 442 is now heading back to the floor of the Indiana Senate where it is expected to make a final decision.
Comments are closed.