On another post, a commenter asked "since when do other people have the right to tell another how to raise their children?" . After my jaw dropped at the absurdity of the question, I replied and want to expand on an idea.
Elected officials tell others, by passing laws, how to raise their children and run their lives all the time. Let's just take one example. In Texas, in order to pass high school, a student must take an abstinence course. Who has decided that, especially given that abstinence programs don't work? Lawmakers in the Texas Legislature (and I"m sure their counterparts in other states). Are they telling me how I should raise my family? Sure. Were it a law that said sex education must be taught in a certain fashion explaining birth control, I know those who don't want it taught would cry out that the schools were trying to tell them how to raise their kids. That's just how it is. If the lawmaker happens to be on the side of the same beliefts that a person has, he or she may not mind that the law is interfering. But why in the world shouldn't those people who don't agree with the law speak up and suggest that they don't want to be told... how to raise their children?
Remember the Governor Perry attempt to force Gardasil vaccinations on 12 year old girls and insist that they would not be able to attend school without them? Wasn't that trying to tell people how to raise their children?
Maybe some like NCLB but I resent seeing fine teachers spend so much of their time teaching to a test in order to pass some mark that C student Bush wouldn't have been able to make. Education and school should be more than passing tests but inculcating a love of learing, a critical and curious mind. Are the people who passed NCLB telling me how to raise my children? Yes. Now, one could take a child out of school and put him or her into private school, but I happen to believe in public schools. I just want to see some changes made.
Now, let's consider Sarah Palin, who, as we know, has a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant out of wedlock. Obviously, obviously, astinence education didn't work. Might it have helped to have sex education tthat explained how it all worked and how to prevent it via birth control? I think so, but Palin doesn't.
Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
So, if I am a person who already knows that abstinence only programs don't work (and clearly didn't in the case of her daughter) and wants more explantation with birth control taught, why would I want to vote for her? Elected officials such as she would either be able to make laws along that line or attempt to heavily influence others from passing my kind of law. Isn't that interfering with how I want to raise my children?
OF COURSE IT IS.
If Ms Palin or others of her ilk want to keep how they raise their children a private matter, then they need to not bring it up. As soon as these issues and values are brought up, they are fair game to be discussed and decided upon by those who WILL BE AFFECTED BY THOSE BELIEFS.
And she and the Republican party had no problem bringing up the Down Syndrome child and the fact that she chose not to abort the baby. Most women might consider that type of thing a private family matter. The only reason it was brought up publicly was in order to make it a PUBLIC decision for others to possibly rally around, because laws regarding this might be passed THAT WOULD AFFECT MY FAMILY AND HOW I WANT TO RAISE MY CHILDREN.
So, others may say they will be quiet about these things. Not me. Not as long as people we elect to powerful positions can take their views that I may or may not agree with and impose them into my own life.