, , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a followup to my previous post on this subject.

As of this writing, the School Board is almost unanimous in saying “yes.” Its chairwoman said “We have the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases, highest rate of teen pregnancy, and highest repeat teen pregnancy rates in the state… this has long-term consequences.” [Does anyone not think she’s right?]

Some of the alderman said that it would be best to start by educating parents, although they sagely noted that this wouldn’t be easy. Another said that handing out condoms to students would be “an insult to parents.” [Which parents, the ones that need to be educated? or the ones that are only 13 years older than their children?] He went on to say that “we’re putting more importance on condoms than the kids themselves.” [I don’t even know what he means.]

The meeting apparently ended with the astounding conclusion that “Education is no place to skimp.”

Meanwhile, a small group of protestors led by three local ministers were dead set against handing out condoms. The ministers admitted that they might be turning back the clock, but asserted that “it was time to turn back the clock.” He linked taking prayer out of the schools to passing out condoms, and said “No! No! No! We need to teach chastity before marriage.” [So what’s stopping him?]

Another minister repeated the canard that condoms “don’t protect you from Aids and sexually transmitted diseases.” [What medical school did he go to?]

My sources for this, by the way, are Condom controversy: School distribution plan at center of debate and Ministers lead protest outside Board of Ed, published in the September 25 edition of the New Britain Herald.