Bipartisan support suggests better sex ed in FL schools. It's the opposite.
As a Palm Beach County resident, the Executive Director of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, and a mom of two teenagers, I have grave concerns about our young people's future in Florida. I know our elected officials share my commitment to education, but I'm troubled by the support I'm seeing for House Bill 1255, which includes language mandating the use of anti-abortion propaganda in our public schools.
As this bill moves through the committee process we're seeing members of our local legislative delegation – both Democrats and Republicans – voting "yes" for this bill requiring middle and high school students in Florida be subjected to anti-abortion indoctrination despite the fact that National Sex Education Standards do not recommend viewing an ultrasound video for sex education and displaying such a video is not considered a best practice in the sex education field.
Bills like HB 1255 are another example of a growing trend to infuse anti-abortion extremism and disinformation into health education by requiring the viewing of the "Meet Baby Olivia" video created by Live Action, an extreme anti-abortion group. Although the bill doesn't directly name Live Action's 'Meet Baby Olivia' video, it uses a description of the video that is very similar to the one used in the North Dakota law, and would likely require that students have to watch the Live Action video as part of health education. Thus far, no other videos have been developed that comply with the legislation, which leaves school boards with no option but to rely on Live Action's materials, even though the video is not scientifically accurate and has not been endorsed by leading medical organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
Opinion: Florida is getting prudish on sex education
Being that the video in question is intended to mislead and frighten, it's no wonder it's rife with falsehoods. For starters, the video counts the embryo's age from conception, which is not how doctors measure pregnancy. They measure from the last known period. That means, in addition to other inaccuracies about development, every milestone is presented two weeks earlier than it happens. The computer-generated video uses up-close shots to misrepresent fetal development. The truth is, early pregnancy looks nothing like what we're told by groups like Live Action.
Live Action – the group behind the 'Baby Olivia' video – must not be allowed to spread their propaganda in our schools. Their group has been suspended or banned from several social media platforms for spreading conspiracies and disinformation and for posting graphic fear-mongering content and has been widely discredited for its inflammatory and doctored videos.
In April 2024, Fargo Public Schools in North Dakota stopped showing this video after a 15-year-old student said the video was misleading. A committee there investigated the video and found it contains significant portions of untrue information, inaccurate facts, and/or faulty premises.
Opinion: Florida turning the page on book banning with an excuse that will make you gag
All young people — no matter who they are or where they live — deserve sex education that is reflective of their experiences and needs. Young people deserve an accurate curriculum that will equip them to make healthy decisions and build the futures they want.
I hope our legislators will heed this warning from North Dakota – and from the overwhelming opposition from Floridians who have testified against this bill – and not only vote down this dangerous language, but speak up for our young people who are looking to these elected officials for leadership.
Laura Goodhue is Executive Director of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, and Palm Beach resident.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Florida sex ed in schools may get worse with new bill | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Senate passes budget giving Browns $600 million, tax cut to wealthy, more public school money
Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.) The Ohio Senate has passed a $60 billion state biennial operating budget, which includes a tax cut for the wealthy, some increased public education funding, and $600 million in funding to the Cleveland Browns for their new stadium. The total budget is expected to be around $200 billion once federal dollars come in. Ohio House Bill 96 was voted on mainly along party lines, 23-10. State Sen. Bill Blessing, R-Colerain Township, joined the Democrats to vote no. The senators increased the amount of money going to public schools from the Ohio House's proposal. The Senate budget gives public schools about $100 million more than the House. Although they follow most of the Ohio House's proposed budget, which only gives schools about $226 million of an increase for school funding, the Senate changed the funding 'guarantee' amount. Right now, some districts have guarantees that a portion of their funding will not be reduced, even if their enrollment goes down This $100 million added back would only go to high-performing or 'improving' districts. However, to be fully funded based on statistics from the Fair School Funding Plan (FSFP) from 2021, schools would need an additional $666-800 million, compared to the $226 million given by the House. Still, the Senate's version is closer to the FSFP than the House's. 'We're following the funding scheme that was put together in the first place,' Senate Finance Chair Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, said. 'Our bill is the closest way to get there.' They also raised the House proposal's cap on districts' rainy day funds to 50%, instead of 30%. This would mean that the schools would have to refund anything above that back to the taxpayer to provide property tax relief. 'The priority is not, obviously, in fully funding education, investing in our children and our future,' Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, said. The Senate's budget proposal still includes $600 million for a new Cleveland Browns stadium in Brook Park. However, the funding structure differs from what the Browns proposed and what the House approved earlier this year. The House proposed borrowing $600 million by issuing bonds and repaying the debt, with interest, over 25 years, at a cost of about $1 billion. The Senate is proposing a $600 million grant for the stadium using unclaimed funds. That's other people's money that the state is holding, from things like forgotten bank accounts, rent, or utility deposits or uncashed insurance policies. The Ohio Department of Commerce's website states the state is sitting on $4.8 billion in unclaimed funds. Asked about the possibility of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine vetoing that provision, Cirino noted that DeWine said publicly he did not like the debt arrangement of the House for the $600 million. DeWine himself had proposed raising gambling taxes. 'I'm pretty confident and feel good that the governor and the House will look at our approach to it,' Cirino said. Ohio Democratic lawmakers remain staunchly opposed to the project. 'If they could find that money for the Browns and their stadium's move to Brook Park, why didn't they decide to use those funds for the schools?' Antonio asked. The budget also includes a 2.75% flat income tax. There are three income tax brackets in Ohio. Those making up to $26,000 do not need to pay state income tax. Ohioans earning between $26,000 and $100,000 pay a tax of 2.75%. Those making more than $100,000 have to pay 3.5%. State data reveals that this flat tax could result in a loss of about $1.1 billion in the General Revenue Fund. 'The dollars that we're foregoing in the flat tax are already incorporated into our overall spending,' Cirino said. Funding for schools, Medicaid, libraries, lead abatement, food banks, and child care face funding decreases from the current status or from the governor's budget. Asked about these cuts these cuts to social services for lower-income people while giving a tax cut to the state's highest earners, Cirino said Republicans think it's going to be good for the economy. 'It's going to be good for attracting people,' Cirino responded. Antonio disagreed. 'It's a gift to the wealthiest among us on the backs of the poorest and lowest-income and middle-class folks in the state of Ohio,' she said. Senate Republicans propose giving $20,000 to top high school students to encourage them to stay in the state for their higher education. The Governor's Merit Scholarship was passed in the House budget. Already existing, the House language would extend the proposal that gives the top 5% of each graduating high school class $5,000 a year to attend a public or private school in Ohio. But the Senate version reduces the scholarship to the top 2% of students. The money would also have strings attached. The scholarship recipients would be required to reside in Ohio for three years after graduation. There would be an 'expectation' that the money would be returned if they leave within the three years. Now, the Senate and House leaders will enter a conference committee, a closed-door negotiation period to create a final budget. Once a decision is made, both chambers must pass the combined bill. If it passes through both sides, it will be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for review. In the past, he issued dozens of line-item vetoes on operating budgets. Line-item vetoing is the ability for the governor to pick and choose which policies within a larger piece of legislation get to stay or must go. The deadline for the budget to be passed is July 1. Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on X and Facebook. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Newsom speech taking on Trump encourages Democrats looking for a leader
California Gov. Gavin Newsom won praise on Wednesday for his speech Tuesday night seen by a national audience, something many Democrats saw as a shot across the bow to President Donald Trump that they can fight Trump -- and one that sparked new talk of Newsom as the party's standard-bearer in 2028. "The rule of law has increasingly given way to the rule of Don," he said, blasting Trump for sending the military to quell protests in Los Angeles. "The founding fathers did not live and die to see this moment. It's time for all of us to stand up," Newsom said in his eight-minute highly produced remarks, flanked by the California and U.S. flags. Newsom's message to Californians -- and Americans listening -- was politically sobering, arguing that "Democracy is under assault before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived." "What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment. Do not give in to him," he urged what might have been millions of viewers watching on cable news channels. MORE: Protests live updates: At least 5 criminal cases related to LA protests, DA says His rhetoric directly calling out Trump comes as Democrats are hungry for a leader to unite them as they try to rebuild from 2024 and other party losses. "We want somebody to fight, and so he's been fighting, and it's been glorious to watch," RL Miller, an environmental activist and Democratic National Committee superdelegate, told ABC News. Miller thinks Democrats have spent too much time "navel-gazing" since the November election, wasting time and resources rather than looking forward. "Newsom is going to be vaulting back into that top tier of presidential candidates with this," she said. His speech was just the latest in Newsom's verbal combat with the Trump administration. Earlier in the week, he challenged Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, after he suggested that anyone who blocked the administration's immigration crackdown should be apprehended, even Newsom, a comment he later walked back but Trump endorsed. "Come after me, arrest me. Let's just get this over with, tough guy," Newsom told NBC News. "That's the energy we need in this moment," Democratic National Committee spokesperson Hannah Muldavian said of Newsom during the party's new daily YouTube show. Other national Democrats echoed that praise. In a joint news conference Wednesday morning, top party brass, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threw their support behind Newsom's new war with Trump. "All I add is President Trump is trying to intimidate Gavin Newsom," Schumer, D-N.Y., said. "He has shown he's not going to be intimidated, and we're all for that, all for him and proud that he is refusing to be intimidated by Donald Trump." Newsom's PAC, Campaign for Democracy, sent out fundraising texts asking supporters to donate to help Newsom "continue to fight back against the attacks and threats from the Trump administration." Rob Stutzman, a Republican strategist who worked with former California GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said Newsom with asserting authentic leadership for Democrats who have been "leaderless all year" and likely quite eager to see such a high-profile official "fighting back" to Trump. "There's resistance that often seems contrived, but these circumstances have given him an essential, authentic resistance footing," said Stutzman. Still, it remains unclear if Newsom can win on immigration, one of Trump's central campaign issues and a top concern of many Americans. As a whole, Democrats have struggled to offer a singular message and response to Trump's actions. And the White House is continuously highlighting the unrest in California as a prime example of what is says is Newsom's poor record. Trump blasted the governor on his social media platform Monday, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have "failed their citizens." She said Newsom "owns" the images of violent protests. Newsom, who is term-limited and has not ruled out a 2028 presidential bid, isn't the only Democratic governor pitching themselves as tough on Trump. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz recently traveled to South Carolina to recap their record to voters, though both are adamant they are not running for the White House this time around. Even still, Newsom seems to rise above the pack. In fact, some operatives in Trump's orbit see Newsom transforming into the Democratic Party's long-sought leader. Former Trump political adviser Bannon told the New York Times that Newsom's address was "a kickoff to his 2028 campaign." Newsom speech taking on Trump encourages Democrats looking for a leader originally appeared on
San Francisco Chronicle
38 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But the bill provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. And it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. 'While I shared the bill's goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn't,' said Reynolds, a Republican, in the explanation of her veto. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.' Despite her veto, Reynolds said she was 'committed to working with the legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.' Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican who supported the bill in the House, said Wednesday that her commitment is too little, too late. 'If she was willing to work with us on this, where in the world has she been the last three years?' Kaufmann said. 'She is clearly not siding with the constitutional rights of landowners but rather she's siding with special interests.' Summit has said it has invested nearly $175 million to enter into voluntary agreements with landowners in Iowa and more than $1 billion on the project overall. In a statement, Summit thanked the governor for a thoughtful review of the bill and said their goal is to proceed with voluntary agreements with landowners. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project,' Summit said Wednesday. 'At a time when farmers are facing increasing pressures, this project opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' Rift in Republican-controlled statehouse Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley said after Reynolds' veto that he would pursue a special session to vote on an override, saying in a statement that the veto 'is a major setback for Iowa.' The Iowa Constitution states that a request for special session from two-thirds of both chambers, or the governor, can bring lawmakers back to Des Moines. Two-thirds of both chambers would need to vote for an override for the bill to become law without the governor's approval. 'We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain,' Grassley said. Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver suggested that would be unlikely in his chamber. Thirteen Republican senators had joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, but 21 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. 'Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights. I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto,' he said. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Summit's project and its critics The Summit pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. A group of landowners released a statement Wednesday calling the veto a slap in the face. 'Big money, greed & self interest won the day,' said Jan Norris, a landowner in southwest Iowa whose neighbor is in the pipeline's route. 'Our property rights are for sale to the highest bidder.'
