It is first important to understand a few facts in the case. Hobby Lobby did not deny coverage of all birth control options under its insurance plan. They agreed to cover the contraception options used by the majority of the women, the contraception which prevents fertilization of the egg. Condoms, diaphragms, withdrawal, natural family planning, and hormones causing production of eggs to stop are examples of the first type of contraceptives covered by Hobby Lobby’s insurance plan. Megan Best (2014) says, “We need to remember, then, that the Hobby Lobby case is not about all contraceptives, but only those that challenge the ethical values of those that value human life from the time of fertilization”.
The teaching of abstinence only in schools shows the belief that birth control is used only for intercourse, and treating birth control like the boogeyman will prevent teens from having intercourse. An article titled “Why Abstinence Education? It’s Right- and it Works” claims, “First, sex produces babies. Sexual abstinence prevents pregnancy. Abstinence-until-marriage — and faithfulness after marriage — not only protects against sexually transmitted diseases, it gives young people a stronger platform from which to pursue their dreams and goals”.
They focus on sexual health but go into detail with the topic of having subtopics such as sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, and pregnancy. Many people and organizations believe that sex education is important since helping people prevent HIV and STDs has helped increase the empowerment against sexual violence. Planned Parenthood also offers to teach people personal skills this includes communication, negotiation, and decision-making. Many schools are said to not offer students the opportunities to learn these skills and that is why Planned Parenthood is stepping in. They as well help educate people on society and culture this talks about gender roles, diversity, and sexuality in the media.
The people on the pro-life side wanted to get rid of abortion while pro-choice wanted there to be a choice, so the result was a worst-case scenario which would keep it fair. The outcome of having a fair compromise was unwinding children from the ages thirteen to eighteen so they wouldn’t be killed before birth and given a chance to prove their worthiness unless they would be unwinded. As stated in “The Bill of Life” unwinding means “the process by which a child is both terminated and yet kept alive” which would benefit the sides, and making it the sole reason the society became a dystopia from its attempt to criticize an important controversial topic which separated many. In order to transition the society in Unwind from the present dystopia to a functional and fair society, children need to be cared for and not left. To get this to happen people who aren’t ready to have children must be careful and think more about what they are doing before they regret it and stork their
Brian Wilson and Laura Finley discuss how they believe instead keeping violence out of schools the laws “prevent student learning” (Wilson and Finley). Regarding the purpose of the policies, Wilson and Finley state, “zero-tolerance policies are, in effect, a means of channeling young people into the juvenile justice system.” Some of the policies have nothing to do with the safety of the school such as being a distraction, and disobeying dress code. These types of infractions allows minority students to spend less time in school and more time home; time home allows students to find trouble in gangs and crime. Instead of sending students home for a dress code infraction, administrators could simply have clothing available for students who have these infractions. Russel Skiba states, “the use, and especially the overuse, of disciplinary removal carries with it and inherent risk of racial bias” (4).Advocates believe students who break zero-tolerance rules deserves their cruel punishment because no one made them disobey the rules but themselves.
In 1838 diaphragms and condoms were created with processed rubber but were not advocated for by most of the spouses as a birth control method but for preventing contraction of venereal diseases. The most effective method of preventing contraception was abstaining from sex; however this was not acceptable to most spouses as a birth control method. Today family planning is taught to women and equally to men. Women in marriages are at liberty to make decisions like if to take divorce after experience of
Another common philosophy is that pregnancy is a consequence of not using contraception during sex. People claim that suffering through a pregnancy, giving birth, and raising the unwanted child is the responsible thing to do if one gets pregnant. However, some would find that the more responsible solution is getting an abortion. Not everyone has access to contraception, or has been educated on how to use it. More work should be done to educate people on and create more access to contraception rather than punishing those who were not taught.
Title V came about in 1996 as a stricter version of AFLA. The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Act (TANF) contained Title V which provided grants to states for enacting abstinence only programs in their schools. To receive the funding Title V offers, the curriculum must consist of a conservative government designed eight point system (Watkins, “Abstinence Education Not Effective”). While the schools aren't required to cover all eight points under Title V, they cannot go directly against any of them. The last and largest contributor began in the year 2000 and is known as Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE).
Government. The authors, Kathrin F. Stanger-Hall and David W. Hall, of “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S.” discuss how sex education is demonstrated throughout the U.S. and how the government may be a contributor to these alarming rates (2011). They state, “some argue that sex education that covers safe sexual practices, such as condom use, sends a mixed message to students and promotes sexual activity” in describing the U.S. Government’s standpoint on sex education (Stanger-Hall & Hall, 2011, p. 1). They strictly believe that abstinence-only education throughout schools is the answer. Abstinence is restraining one’s self from all forms of sexual activity and choosing to not participate in any sexual acts.
It includes other sensitive issues like sexual health, sexual reproduction, sexuality and others that parents often feel uncomfortable talking with their children. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of schools to address this issue, and inform and educate students about it as much as possible. The purpose of this paper is to provide the arguments why sex education should be taught in school. This paper also provide the counter arguments of the opponents of banning taught sex education at school and some points of arguments to support taught sex education at school. Those who disagree if sex education should be taught in schools argues that it is not the place of school to talk about sex.
They’re not going to go out into the real world half naked and relying on a conch to speak, setting fire to cars and making a trophy out of a pigs head. This book is so much more than what is on the surface, and if any of you bothered to pay attention in your own English classes, maybe you would’ve learned that. This kind of ‘protection’ you seem to think that you are providing is what gets your kids in trouble. Kind of like when our schools decided – after one of our BRILLIANT PTA ideas – that we should teach abstinence-only when it came to sex education. And our pregnancy rate spiked.
Instead of giving in to these students’ demands, universities should abandon restrictive speech codes and officially discourage trigger warnings. Universities should also prepare students for how to live in a world with potential offenses, an example of this is teaching them practices of cognitive behavioral therapy. A suggestion that I have for a future study is to teach students throughout high school the practices of cognitive behavioral therapy to help cope with emotionally discomforting subjects, as well as inform them that the real world will have no “trigger warnings” to help you through life. By doing this, it exposes people to the fact that reality doesn’t accommodate trigger warnings and cop outs due to emotional health reasons, and it gives them methods to combat these anxiety-inducing subjects to help them live their lives. These findings teach us that in life we will have to deal with discomforting people and opinions, but by knowing how to live
Would you want anyone to ban books so you couldn’t further your education? School Board members should not ban certain books because students can get more of a challenge from certain books, you also can get many life lessons from a more mature book, and students also get more of a choice which means more books to read. One reason I believe school board members should not ban books is because it gives students more of a challenge. For example, teachers like to challenge kids to read above their grade level and reading more mature books will get them there. However, how will they get assigned harder or more challenging books if those kinds of books are banned from the school library.
Abstinence-only programs are a form of sexual education that encourages and teaches not having sex outside of marriage. There has been a great deal of debate over if abstinence programs work amongst children and adolescents. Each of my three articles examined a different abstinence-only program that was administrated to children and adolescents. Through the L.I Teen Freedom program, the adolescents increased in indicators such as pro-abstinence attitudes, self efficacy to remain abstinent and interventions and behaviors to practice abstinence (Rue et al., 2012). Through the program, Family Action Model for Empowerment the participants decreased in the risky sexual behavior (Abel et al., 2008).
According to the first amendment everyone has the freedom of speech, but does that include putting other children at risk for not choosing to no inoculate others? Parents have the right to exercise their religion and not vaccinate their children, but that also puts children who are to young to receive their vaccinations at risk. Some parents have the preconceived notion that the new “cocktails” of vaccinations are to blame for the contraction of autism in their children which is why they refuse to inoculate their children. Having said that, one of our founding principles is “individualism”, we have to respect people’s decisions even if it is outside the cultural norm. Although, medical evidence is inconclusive at this point in time, however the research is still ongoing.