Sex Ed Bill Passes Senate, But Not 'Decorum'

By Andy Metzger, State House News Service

BOSTON, MA — The state Senate, after a sometimes pitched debate Thursday, advanced a framework to be used by public schools that teach sexual education, that includes information about the effective use of contraceptives and analyses of societal and media messages.

Public schools are not required to teach sexual education and the bill would not change that, but it would provide strictures for schools and districts that have decided to offer a comprehensive sex ed curriculum.

The bill (S 2113) approved 31-6 requires medically accurate and age-appropriate education about human anatomy, the benefits of abstinence, and gender identity, among other requirements.

Sen. Richard Ross, of Wrentham, was the only Republican to support the bill, and Sen. Mike Rush, of West Roxbury, was the only Democrat to oppose it.

The biggest debate on the bill centered on how to offer parents the choice of whether their children participate in sex ed. The bill requires schools to notify parents about the program, offer them the opportunity to inspect instructional materials, and give them a chance to opt out.

Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican, argued that "education of this nature should be primarily the responsibility of the family and parents," who should be required to opt-in for students to receive sex ed.

Current law gives parents the opportunity to opt out of sex ed, and Sen. Sal DiDomenico, an Everett Democrat and the primary sponsor of the legislation, said requiring parents to opt in would be a major detriment.

"This amendment would gut the bill. This amendment would effectively take all the work that we have put together in this bill and throw it out the window," DiDomenico said. He said, "We do not have opt-in for science, math, arithmetic."

Sen. John Keenan, a Quincy Democrat, said requiring parents to opt-in would add a burden on school districts.

Tarr responded that opponents of his amendment were suggesting "the role of the parent should be subordinate to the role of bureaucracy." Tarr said. "Gutting the bill, Mr. President, by requiring that a parent choose to enroll their student in this particular form of education, that is a very deeply concerning sentence and statement that somehow this bill is jeopardized by the fact that we might want to involve parents in decision-making."

After Tarr's amendment was defeated, Acton Democrat Sen. Jamie Eldridge took to Twitter, writing that the Senate Republican caucus "believes sex ed shouldn't be a part of public school education, despite proof reducing pregnancies, STDs." He wrote, the Republican caucus "would rather put their heads in the sand than accept young people engage in sexual activity."

Eldridge told the News Service that several of his Democratic colleagues told him that his Twitter missives had upset Republicans who met in a caucus about it. Through an aide, Tarr declined to talk about that.

Tarr's opt-in amendment was defeated on a 9-29 vote. Democratic Sens. Joan Lovely, Michael Moore, Walter Timilty and Rush joined the majority of the Republican caucus in supporting the opt-in clause.

Senators generally maintain a spirit of collegiality during debates, and at the end of Thursday's deliberations Tarr praised DiDomenico for his decorum during the debate.

But there moments during the debate where it appeared even the adults did not know how to talk about sex.

During the debate, Sen. Linda Dorcena Forry, a Dorchester Democrat, relayed a story told to her "several years ago" by Sen. Jennifer Flanagan of Leominster about how jelly bracelets - those colorful, plastic bracelets popular in the 1980s - had become a symbol for "something physical" and part of a school game that Forry found to be "mind-blowing, very disturbing."

"If a young man took the girl's yellow bracelet he could kiss the girl. If a boy took the green bracelet that means he can make out with her. And if he pulled the black bracelet that means the young girl in our schools would have to give him a BJ," Forry said. "And our young girls were doing that. Our girls in the commonwealth were doing that and playing this silly game because our young men and our young boys were saying, hey, let's play this game. And so I say this because we have a lot of work to do."

"It's is not a game to touch someone," Forry added.

Forry's comments - particularly her decision to use an abbreviation for an act of oral sex - resurfaced about 15 minutes later when Senate President Stanley Rosenberg apologized to senators and the public for not gaveling down Forry immediately for a breach of Senate decorum.

Forry immediately apologized if anyone was offended by her comments, but in an interview with the News Service after the session she said that sometimes it's important to be direct.

"I used it because in the moment as we talk about health and healthy relationships that was a real thing and sometimes as adults we want to put our heads in the sand and act like it's not happening but it is," Forry said.

The bill now moves to the House for consideration where leaders may take lessons away from Thursday's Senate debate.

Questioning the Senate's description of the bill as one that "updates health classes & teaches students about relationships," Republican Rep. Marc Lombardo, of Billerica, responded on Twitter.

"Updates and relationships? Like using Plastic wrap as a contraceptive & teaching 12yo kids how to have anal sex? This is a disgusting bill," Lombardo wrote in the first of two Tweets. "If this bill makes it to the House of Represenatives (sic), I will read the language from the materials on the floor to ensure the public is aware."
Depending on the text Lombardo plans to read from, the presiding member of the House could find himself or herself deciding what type of language adults can use to talk about sex.

Matt Murphy of the State House News Service contributed to this report